TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the application to modify the first motion and dispense with the meeting of secured creditors was unsustainable on technical grounds, and whether the matter required remand to permit amendment and reconsideration.
Analysis: The application arose in a scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act, 2013. The record showed that unsecured creditors had approved the scheme and that substantial secured creditors had also furnished consents, while the objection of the tribunal was principally that no formal prayer for amendment had been made in the first motion application. The appellate tribunal held that, in the circumstances, the tribunal below took a technical view and ought to have afforded an opportunity to cure the pleading defect rather than reject the application outright. It further noted that payment of some secured creditors by an ongoing concern did not, by itself, establish that the scheme had changed in a manner warranting rejection at the threshold.
Conclusion: The dismissal on technical grounds was not sustainable. The matter was remanded to the tribunal below with liberty to amend the pleadings and seek appropriate alternative reliefs, after which the application was to be heard afresh.
TaxTMI 
