TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the scheme for revival of the company, as modified by resolution No. 1, satisfied the statutory requirements for sanction under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and was commercially viable and in the public interest; (ii) whether the meetings of shareholders and creditors were validly constituted and whether the votes of transferees and substituted creditors could be counted for determining the requisite majority; (iii) whether the objections based on alleged nondisclosure, invalid substitution of the propounder, absence of the register entries, and want of a project report barred sanction of the scheme.
Issue (i): whether the scheme for revival of the company, as modified by resolution No. 1, satisfied the statutory requirements for sanction under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and was commercially viable and in the public interest.
Analysis: The statutory conditions for sanction of a compromise or arrangement required compliance with the procedural requirements, fair representation of the affected class, and a scheme that a prudent business person would reasonably approve. The scheme had to be assessed in the context of the company's financial position, the secured and unsecured liabilities, the substantial contributions already made by the financiers, and the practical prospects of reviving a sick industrial unit. The Court treated revival as a matter of public interest because it could preserve assets as a productive enterprise and generate employment. It also noted that the Central Government and the official liquidator had supported the modified scheme.
Conclusion: The modified scheme satisfied the legal requirements and was held to be commercially viable and in the public interest.
Issue (ii): whether the meetings of shareholders and creditors were validly constituted and whether the votes of transferees and substituted creditors could be counted for determining the requisite majority.
Analysis: The Court held that the earlier order validating the transfer of shares and credits had become final and controlled the voting strength at the meetings. In determining the statutory majority, the Court preferred a practical construction of "number" so that it reflected the number of creditors or shareholders represented by the voter, including persons whose claims had been lawfully acquired or stepped into by transfer. It also held that a mere head count could not defeat the scheme where the value of votes overwhelmingly supported it. On the facts, the scheme secured the requisite majority both in number and in value in the shareholders' meeting and also in the creditors' meeting when the lawful transfers were accounted for.
Conclusion: The meetings were valid and the requisite statutory majority was held to have been obtained in favour of the scheme.
Issue (iii): whether the objections based on alleged nondisclosure, invalid substitution of the propounder, absence of the register entries, and want of a project report barred sanction of the scheme.
Analysis: The Court found no material suppression of facts that would vitiate the meetings or the approval process. The objections that Misra and Arneja could not be substituted for the original propounder, that their names were not entered in the register of members, that certain companies could not be treated as creditors, and that the scheme lacked a project report were rejected as lacking substance. The Court held that substitution of the sponsor did not alter the basic fabric of the scheme, that the transfer entries had been recognised in the records, and that non-filing of a project report was not fatal because implementation could be supervised after sanction under the Court's continuing jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The objections were rejected and did not prevent sanction of the scheme.
Final Conclusion: The scheme for revival was sanctioned with directions for implementation, the winding-up order was recalled, and the connected challenges to the scheme failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In sanctioning a scheme of arrangement for a company in liquidation, the Court may treat lawfully transferred shares and credits as part of the voting strength, construe the statutory majority pragmatically by value and represented persons, and approve a scheme that is bona fide, viable, and in the public interest notwithstanding objections of technical noncompliance where the scheme has otherwise been validly approved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
