Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned where bona fide and procedurally compliant; winding up stayed with safeguards for creditors and workers.

Scheme of arrangement and reconstruction may be sanctioned under the Companies Act where it is bona fide, complies with statutory procedure and requisite majorities, is not a ruse to dispose of assets, and is fair and reasonable to affected classes; when these conditions are met the winding up may be stayed and assets handed over subject to protective directions. Protective measures include restrictions on alienation, inventory and photographic records, periodic reporting, interim deposits by the promoter, and creation of a claims adjudication process to protect and determine workers' and statutory claims before payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Scheme of Arrangement and Reconstruction for revival of Dhar Cement Limited in liquidation is fair, reasonable and may be sanctioned under Sections 391, 392 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) Whether the winding up proceedings in Company Petition No.17/2002 should be stayed permanently under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 and assets handed over in accordance with the sanctioned scheme; (iii) Whether the claims of ex-workers and statutory dues should be protected and adjudicated and what interim directions should be issued regarding adjudication and protection of workers' claims and assets of the company.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed Scheme of Arrangement and Reconstruction is fit for sanction under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The Court examined the Scheme, the Chairman's report of meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors, the Regional Director's objections and the Official Liquidator's report. The Court applied settled principles that sanction is permissible where statutory procedures are complied with, the requisite majorities and meetings are properly convened and conducted, the scheme is bona fide, not a ruse to dispose of assets, is fair and reasonable to the classes concerned and not opposed to public interest. The petitioner undertook to comply with accounting standards and statutory liabilities; secured creditors' no-dues were on record and meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors approved the scheme unanimously; regulatory concerns were addressed by undertakings and the Official Liquidator raised only specific administrative objections which were dealt with.

Conclusion: In favour of Petitioner. The Scheme of Arrangement and Reconstruction is sanctioned and is fair, reasonable and not opposed to public interest.

Issue (ii): Whether the winding up proceedings should be permanently stayed and assets handed over to the promoter/contributory in terms of Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Applying Section 466 and authoritative precedent, the Court considered whether the scheme genuinely contemplates revival, is bona fide and would protect creditors and workers. The record showed secured creditors' dues had been settled by the petitioner and meetings of unsecured creditors had approved the scheme. The Official Liquidator's practical concerns were addressed by directions concerning inventory, photographs, videography, restrictions on alienation and filing of periodic reports and payment of outstanding operational expenses.

Conclusion: In favour of Petitioner. The winding up proceedings are permanently stayed and the Official Liquidator is directed to hand over assets subject to the Court's directions and safeguards.

Issue (iii): Whether and how the claims of ex-workers and statutory dues should be protected and adjudicated in the context of sanctioning the scheme and staying liquidation.

Analysis: The Court recognised that workers' claims cannot be ignored and that revival may be in their interest due to prospective re-employment; the petitioner offered to satisfy workers' claims and to deposit funds to show bonafides. To protect workers' rights, the Court appointed a one-man Claim Committee, directed advertisement and submission of claims, set timeframes for adjudication, required an interim deposit by the promoter/contributory, provided for payment of claims as adjudicated, preserved a limited avenue for aggrieved workers to approach the Court, and ordered that the promoter bear Official Liquidator's related expenses.

Conclusion: In favour of workers. Workers' claims are to be adjudicated by the constituted Claim Committee; interim protection and a deposit were ordered and the applications of the workers were disposed of accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The Court sanctioned the Scheme of Arrangement and Reconstruction, permanently stayed the winding up proceedings subject to protective directions (including handover procedures, restrictions on alienation, periodic reporting and modalities for adjudication and payment of workers' claims), disposed of the workers' and other interlocutory applications as directed, and closed Company Petition No.21/2013 while keeping Company Petition No.17/2002 pending only for limited purposes connected to workers' grievances.

Ratio Decidendi: A company court may, under Sections 391-394 and Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956, stay winding up and sanction a scheme of arrangement if the scheme is bona fide, complies with statutory procedure and majorities, is fair and reasonable to the concerned classes and not a ruse to dispose of assets, subject to protective measures to safeguard creditors' and workers' rights.

---