Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, at the stage of issuing directions on a Judge's summons for compromise or amalgamation, the Court was required to direct separate meetings for different classes of creditors, and whether the objection to holding a common meeting of creditors was sustainable.
Analysis: The Scheme itself contained separate provisions dealing with the debt position and the distinct category of MTM creditors, and the Court found that the Scheme could not be treated as inherently defective or mechanically approved. The statutory framework under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 and rules 67 and 69 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 requires the Court to apply its mind prima facie to the genuineness and bona fides of the proposal at the stage of summons, but the final scrutiny of fairness, legality, and public policy occurs later at the stage of confirmation. The objection raised was treated as procedural rather than substantive, and any prejudice from the manner in which meetings were convened could be raised in the meeting itself and again before the Court at confirmation.
Conclusion: The objection to the convening process was not accepted, and no ground was found to interfere with the direction to proceed with the scheme.