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 the order refusing recall of directions convening meetings under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the appellant, as an unsecured creditor, had a caveatable interest and a right to object at the stage of convening the meetings.
Analysis: The convening order was passed in proceedings under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 67 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 after the statutory conditions were found satisfied. The appellant's objections were considered in the proceedings relating to confirmation of the scheme of demerger, and the impugned order did not affect any vested right or cause prejudice at that stage. The court also accepted that an unsecured creditor could not claim interference merely because the meeting directions had been issued and the scheme proceedings were still pending.
Conclusion: The appellant had no ground to recall the order convening the meetings, and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The special appeal did not succeed and the order under challenge was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for convening meetings under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, an unsecured creditor cannot obtain interference merely on the basis of a claimed caveatable interest where the order does not finally determine rights or cause prejudice.