Company Court sanction of compromise schemes depends on disclosure, fairness, and legality, not creditor commercial wisdom.

A Company Court may sanction a compromise and arrangement when the statutory majority supports it, material facts are disclosed, and the scheme is fair, lawful and not contrary to public policy; it does not reassess the commercial wisdom of creditors and shareholders. The text explains that Reserve Bank objections based on its statutory powers do not by themselves prevent sanction where the scheme serves stakeholders and is preferable to winding up. It also notes that disputed creditor-status claims may be rejected where secured status is not established, and pending civil and criminal proceedings may be kept in abeyance to support the approved scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the scheme of compromise and arrangement should be sanctioned despite objections based on public interest and the Reserve Bank of India's statutory powers. (ii) Whether the objections relating to the status of certain creditors and the request to keep civil and criminal proceedings in abeyance were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the scheme of compromise and arrangement should be sanctioned despite objections based on public interest and the Reserve Bank of India's statutory powers.

Analysis: The scheme was approved by the requisite majority of secured creditors, unsecured creditors and shareholders. The Court held that, in sanctioning a scheme under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, it must examine compliance with the statutory procedure, disclosure of material facts, fairness of the scheme, and whether it is contrary to law or public policy, but it does not sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the creditors and shareholders. The Court further held that the Reserve Bank of India's objections based on its own statutory powers did not bar sanction where the scheme was otherwise permissible and served the interests of the stakeholders and the public. On the facts, the Court found that revival through the scheme was preferable to winding up, that the company had not lost its substratum, and that the scheme promoted repayment to small depositors, co-operative banks and other creditors under court supervision.

Conclusion: The scheme was sanctioned, subject to modifications, and the plea that the company must be wound up was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the objections relating to the status of certain creditors and the request to keep civil and criminal proceedings in abeyance were sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that Malanpur Steel Ltd. had not established that it was a secured creditor in respect of the disputed claim, and that GIIC was secured only to the extent supported by a registered charge. The remaining claim of GIIC was to be dealt with under the scheme as an unsecured liability. The Court also held that, in view of the scheme and the circumstances of the pending cases, civil and criminal proceedings could be kept in abeyance under the court's powers to supervise and enforce the compromise and arrangement. The objections of the Official Liquidator were rejected because the scheme sufficiently disclosed the projected finances and the creditors had approved it.

Conclusion: The creditor-status objections were rejected, and the request to keep the pending proceedings in abeyance was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The compromise and arrangement was sanctioned with modifications, the company was not ordered to be wound up, and the proceedings were disposed of in terms of the approved scheme under the Court's supervisory powers.

Ratio Decidendi: A Company Court may sanction a scheme of compromise and arrangement that has the requisite statutory majority support if the statutory disclosures are made, the scheme is fair and not contrary to law or public policy, and the Court is satisfied that the scheme serves the stakeholders better than winding up; the Court may also modify and supervise the scheme to secure its proper working.

---