Sanctioned company scheme cannot be altered post-approval; decree-holder's remedy lay in appeal and execution proceedings.

A challenge to a sanctioned company scheme seeking exclusion of decree-holders from the depositor class and liberty to execute a decree was found not maintainable. The Calcutta High Court noted that the application was made nearly three years after sanction, making the relief discretionary and unjustified. It further stated that, under section 153 of the Companies Act, the court could sanction or refuse a scheme but could not alter it after sanction without fresh consideration and agreement of the affected company, creditors or members. The proper remedy was an appeal against the sanction order, while the executionability of the decree had to be decided in execution proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, having obtained a decree against the company, could have the sanctioned scheme cancelled or modified so as to exclude decree-holders from the class of depositors and obtain liberty to execute the decree.

Analysis: The application was brought nearly three years after sanction of the scheme, which by itself made the relief discretionary and unjustified. The Court also observed that under section 153 of the Companies Act the Court could sanction or refuse a scheme, but had no power to alter it after sanction without a fresh consideration and agreement by the company and creditors or members concerned. The petitioner's proper course was to appeal against the sanction order. If his contention that he was outside the scheme was correct, the question whether he could execute his decree was a matter for execution proceedings, not for this petition.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable and was rejected against the petitioner.

---