ORDER 1. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties. 2. By an order dated 16-12-1991, the learned Company Judge of the Calcutta High Court cancelled the scheme earlier sanctioned on the ground that the terms of the scheme, particularly in the matter of the schedule of payments to the creditors had not been complied with. That order was carried up in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which, by its order dated 24-3-1992 now under appeal, stayed the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench directed that instead of payment of 2% p.m. to the unsecured creditors, as contemplated by the scheme, there should be payment of 1 % p.m. That was the effect of the order dated 24-31992 of the Division Bench when it referred to and incorporated its earlier order dated 16-12-1991. 3. It is not disputed that payments to the unsecured creditors nave not proceeded strictly in terms of the scheme. There is substantial shortfall. The parties who have taken over the Company under the scheme and who are liable to effect payments to the creditors in terms of the scheme cannot take shelter behind the fact that auditors of the Company have not scrutinised the books of accounts of the Company. That is a matter over which the unsecured creditors have no control. Till the auditors examine the books of accounts and report that the claim to the extent of the claim of the unsecured creditors was not supportable, there could be no suspension of the scheme of payments. 4. On a consideration of the matter it appears appropriate that the appeal a before the Division Bench of the High Court requires to be disposed of expeditiously. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal within three months. 5. In the meanwhile payment to the unsecured creditors should proceed at the rate of 2% p.m. from 1-3-1993 and not at 1 % p.m. The difference for the past on that calculation shall be made good within three months from b today. If there is a failure to do so, it will be appropriate for the Division Bench to put that circumstance also into scale in deciding whether the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the scheme should be interfered with in appeal or not. 6. If there is a failure to do so, it will be appropriate for the Division Bench to put that circumstance also into scale in deciding whether the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the scheme should be interfered with in appeal or not. 6. However, the order of the Division Bench staying the operation of the order dated 16-12-1991, of the learned Single Judge will continue unless the c Division Bench itself considers it appropriate to modify the same in the light of any subsequent event. The Division Bench shall also be at liberty to consider any applications for the modification of the scheme. 7. With these observations and directions the special leave petition is disposed of.