Court defers jurisdiction & maintainability issues in company petition for scheme approval, clarifying convening /= approval.

The court refrained from determining jurisdiction and maintainability issues regarding a company petition for scheme approval, deferring them for future proceedings. It clarified that convening meetings did not imply scheme approval. Emphasizing that objections should be raised at the appropriate stage, the court highlighted that its order facilitated input but did not approve the scheme. The court disposed of the application without delving into the case's merits, leaving all questions open for future consideration and reiterating that objections could be raised during the petition's admission stage.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the company petition for scheme approval.
2. Maintainability of the proposed scheme of arrangement/compromise.
3. Applicability of the order to convene meetings of shareholders and creditors.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a secured creditor, sought to recall an order convening meetings for scheme approval. The court noted the respondent's status before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The court opined that objections should be raised in a future company petition for scheme approval, not at the current stage. The court refrained from considering jurisdiction or maintainability issues now, keeping them open for future proceedings. The court clarified that convening meetings did not imply current scheme approval.

2. The court emphasized that the order merely facilitated shareholder and creditor input without approving the scheme. It cited precedent indicating that scheme approval occurs post-shareholder and creditor endorsement. The court maintained that objections to the scheme's entertainability should be raised during a future company petition. The court's order was without prejudice to ongoing proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.

3. Ultimately, the court disposed of the application without delving into the case's merits. It reiterated that objections regarding the company petition's entertainability could be raised during the petition's admission stage. The court ensured that all questions regarding jurisdiction and scheme maintainability remained open for future consideration, emphasizing that the order to convene meetings did not equate to immediate scheme approval.

---