Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        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 modified compromise scheme under Companies Act 1956, directing timely payments for financial recovery.</h1> <h3>Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd., In re</h3> Gujarat Lease Financing Ltd., In re - [2005] 62 SCL 511 (GUJ.) Issues Involved:1. Sanction of a scheme of compromise under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Financial distress and restructuring of the petitioner-Company.3. Approval and implementation of the scheme by the Consortium of Banks and G-series Debenture holders.4. Legal formalities and procedural compliance for convening meetings and obtaining approvals.5. Final court sanction and directives for implementation of the scheme.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sanction of a scheme of compromise under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956:The petitioner-Company filed a petition under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking court sanction for a scheme of compromise with its secured creditors, specifically a consortium of 16 banks. This legal provision allows companies to propose a compromise or arrangement with creditors or members, subject to court approval.2. Financial distress and restructuring of the petitioner-Company:The petitioner-Company, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), faced significant financial distress starting in 1997-98 due to various economic factors, including recession, low GDP growth, and stringent RBI policies. The company's financial position deteriorated, leading to downgrades by rating agencies and defaults by lease and hire purchase debtors. Consequently, the company incurred substantial losses and conducted negligible business from September 1997 onwards.3. Approval and implementation of the scheme by the Consortium of Banks and G-series Debenture holders:The company proposed a scheme of compromise with its 'E' and 'F' series Debenture holders, which was sanctioned by the court in 2002, resulting in payments of over Rs. 57 crores. A similar scheme was proposed for the Consortium of Banks and 'G' series Debenture holders, with a revised proposal to pay 65% of the outstanding amount as of specific dates. The scheme was approved by the required majority of G-series debenture holders and subsequently sanctioned by the court in December 2003. The Consortium of Banks initially did not approve the scheme by the requisite statutory majority, leading to further negotiations and modifications.4. Legal formalities and procedural compliance for convening meetings and obtaining approvals:The company filed an application for convening a meeting of the Consortium of Banks, which was directed by the court. The notice of the meeting was sent to all consortium members and advertised in newspapers. Multiple adjournments occurred due to requests from banks for further consideration and negotiations. Eventually, an amended proposal was put forward, which included the transfer of existing assets and receivables to benefit the consortium and G-series debenture holders. The amended scheme was approved by 86.67% in number and 86.44% in value of the members present at the meeting.5. Final court sanction and directives for implementation of the scheme:The court admitted the petition and ordered its advertisement. The Central Government did not object to the proposed scheme. No opposition was received from the public or dissenting members. The court, after reviewing the scheme and the majority approval, sanctioned the scheme of compromise. The court noted the substantial implementation of the scheme and directed the company to make the remaining payments within 60 days from the effective date. The court also addressed the procedural history and payments made through an escrow account, ensuring compliance with previous court orders.Conclusion:The court sanctioned the modified scheme of compromise, binding on all members of the Consortium of Banks and the petitioner-Company, and directed the company to complete the remaining payments within the stipulated time frame. The petition was disposed of with specific directives for cost payment to the Additional Central Government Counsel.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found