Scheme of arrangement compliance upheld where voting thresholds, disclosure requirements, and procedural notice objections were found insufficient to block sanction.

A scheme of arrangement under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was found compliant because the requisite statutory majority of shareholders and creditors approved it, and the record disclosed the latest financial position, audit reports, and an affidavit confirming no pending investigation. Objections based on notice, newspaper publication, caveat, and the form of summons were rejected because meetings were individually served and publicly advertised as directed, no rule required publication only in local district newspapers, the caveator suffered no prejudice, and the summons defect did not affect sanction-stage validity. The scheme was treated as fair, lawful, and duly approved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the scheme of arrangement satisfied the statutory requirements for sanction, including approval by the requisite majority of shareholders and creditors and disclosure of material facts; (ii) Whether the objections relating to notice, newspaper publication, caveat, and the form of summons vitiated the meetings or barred sanction of the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the scheme of arrangement satisfied the statutory requirements for sanction, including approval by the requisite majority of shareholders and creditors and disclosure of material facts.

Analysis: A scheme under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 becomes binding only when it is sanctioned by the Court and approved by the statutory majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the members or creditors present and voting. The record showed that the equity shareholders, secured creditors, and unsecured creditors who attended the meetings voted overwhelmingly in favour of the scheme, and the chairman's reports established compliance with the prescribed voting threshold. The petitioners also placed on record the latest financial position, audit reports, and an affidavit stating that no investigation was pending, satisfying the disclosure requirements.

Conclusion: The statutory preconditions for sanction were fulfilled, and the scheme was entitled to be approved.

Issue (ii): Whether the objections relating to notice, newspaper publication, caveat, and the form of summons vitiated the meetings or barred sanction of the scheme.

Analysis: The notices of the meetings were individually served and were also published in newspapers as directed by the Court. Rule 74 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 leaves publication in such newspapers and in such manner to the Court's direction, and no legal requirement was shown mandating publication only in local district newspapers. The absence of notice to the caveator at the preliminary stage caused no prejudice because the objector was heard on merits before sanction. The objection based on the form of summons was also rejected as it did not affect the validity of the scheme at the sanction stage.

Conclusion: The procedural objections did not vitiate the meetings or prevent sanction of the scheme.

Final Conclusion: The scheme of arrangement was fair, lawful, and duly approved, and the objections raised against it were rejected.

---