Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court approves scheme transferring Barium Chemicals Division under Companies Act, 1956. Shareholders' and creditors' interests protected.</h1> <h3>Vishnu Chemicals (P.) Ltd., In re</h3> The court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, between the transferor-company and the ... Compromise and arrangement Issues Involved:1. Sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Consent of shareholders and creditors.3. Financial position and obligations of the transferee-company.4. Impact on employees of the transferor-company.5. Secured creditors' objections and interests.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sanctioning of the Scheme of Arrangement:The petitions were filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the court's sanction for a scheme of arrangement between the transferor-company (Vishnu Chemicals (P.) Ltd.) and the transferee-company (Vishnu Bariums Chemicals (P.) Ltd.). The scheme aimed to transfer the Barium Chemicals Division of the transferor-company to the transferee-company, believed to be beneficial by both managements. The court's role in such cases is to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements and safeguard the interests of all parties involved.2. Consent of Shareholders and Creditors:The court dispensed with the requirement of holding shareholders' meetings, noting that notarized affidavits filed by the shareholders indicated their consent for the proposed scheme. The court directed the transferor-company to hold a meeting of secured creditors, chaired by an advocate, whose report indicated mixed responses from the creditors. The majority consent required under section 391(2) was discussed, with the court noting that the consent of the majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors present and voting is necessary.3. Financial Position and Obligations of the Transferee-Company:The Registrar of Companies raised an issue regarding the financial position of the transferee-company, which was newly incorporated and had not yet produced financial statements. The petitioners clarified that the transferee-company had no creditors, either secured or unsecured, and provided details of its subscribed and paid-up share capital.4. Impact on Employees of the Transferor-Company:Clause 6(a) of the scheme ensured that all permanent employees of the transferor-company's Barium Chemicals Division would become employees of the transferee-company without any interruption in service. The transferee-company undertook to abide by existing agreements and settlements with employee unions and to account for past service for retirement benefits, retrenchment compensation, gratuity, and other terminal benefits.5. Secured Creditors' Objections and Interests:The advocate-chairman's report indicated that two secured creditors (APIDC and APSFC) voted in favor of the scheme, while IDBI and SBH abstained, citing concerns. The court examined the nature of the secured creditors' interests, noting that the IDBI had a mortgage on fixed assets and SBH had a working capital loan secured by hypothecation of inventory and book debts. The court found that the scheme did not adversely affect IDBI's interests as the mortgage would continue with the assets in the hands of the transferee-company. Regarding SBH, the court noted the creation of a second charge on the transferor-company's assets and SBH's in-principle agreement to the scheme, concluding that their interests would not be prejudicially affected.Conclusion:The court emphasized that the consent of parties is one of the considerations for sanctioning a scheme under section 391, but not the only one. The court must ensure that the scheme does not prejudicially affect the interests of any class of creditors or the public interest. In this case, the court found no objections from shareholders or significant prejudice to the secured creditors' interests and sanctioned the scheme of arrangement, allowing the company petitions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found