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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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 waives meetings for Lufthansa & trade creditors, approves Scheme for Compromise. Inter-Corporate Depositors & staff creditors to meet. .</h1> <h3>Modiluft Ltd., In re</h3> Modiluft Ltd., In re - [2003] 47 SCL 227 (DELHI) Issues Involved:1. Application under sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act.2. Convening meetings of creditors for Scheme for Compromise.3. Consent and objections from various creditors.4. Allegations of fraudulent actions and management disputes.5. Classification of creditors and statutory dues.6. Feasibility, bona fides, and legality of the Scheme.7. Exclusion of time-barred debts.Detailed Analysis:1. Application under sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act:The application was moved by Royal Airways Limited (RAL) under sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act, seeking directions for convening meetings of creditors to consider a Scheme for Compromise. The application was initially filed pursuant to a court order dated 31-12-1999 and updated by an order dated 6-3-2003.2. Convening meetings of creditors for Scheme for Compromise:The court permitted the applicant to update the scheme reflecting the company's current financial status. The updated scheme highlighted that a vast majority of creditors (Rs. 41 crores out of Rs. 51 crores) had consented to the scheme. The scheme proposed enhancement in the percentage of the principal amount to be repaid and outlined financing through deposits, rights issues, and proceeds from the sale of shares.3. Consent and objections from various creditors:The applicant argued that more than Rs. 11 crores were available for the scheme's disposal. Debts of individual creditors except customs had been settled, and statutory dues were under litigation. The scheme contemplated four classes of creditors: Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., Inter Corporate Depositors, Trade Creditors, and Staff Creditors. The applicant sought dispensation of meetings for Lufthansa and trade creditors due to their substantial consent.4. Allegations of fraudulent actions and management disputes:The principal opponent, S.K. Modi, was alleged to have caused a loss of more than Rs. 35 crores to the company through fraudulent actions. The present management's status was reaffirmed by court orders restraining S.K. Modi and others from acting on behalf of the company. The opponent argued that the scheme sought to oust certain creditors based on alleged fraud and unpaid call money on shares.5. Classification of creditors and statutory dues:The scheme's classification of creditors was challenged, but the court noted that the company could decide the classes of creditors. The preference given to statutory dues was justified as it was a condition for the No Objection Certificate from the Ministry of Civil Aviation, essential for the company's revival.6. Feasibility, bona fides, and legality of the Scheme:The court emphasized that at the stage of section 391(1), it was concerned with the feasibility, bona fides, public interest, and creditors' interest. The scheme was found to be prima facie valid and bona fide, with substantial creditor consent. The court held that the scheme should be referred for consideration under section 391(1).7. Exclusion of time-barred debts:The court noted that the exclusion of time-barred debts was a risk the proponent of the scheme took. Adequate provision could be made for such claims under section 391(2) if found genuine. The plea that the scheme would be invalid without including certain creditors was not upheld, as the scheme's feasibility would be considered during the creditors' meeting.Conclusion:The court ordered that the requirement of convening and holding meetings of Lufthansa and trade creditors was dispensed with due to their consent. However, meetings for Inter-Corporate Depositors and staff creditors were to be convened to consider and approve the updated Scheme for Compromise. The court found the scheme bona fide, reasonable, and prima facie feasible, warranting consideration under section 391(1) of the Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found