Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2014 (4) TMI 1325 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Company scheme of arrangement sanctioned after 93% debenture holder approval under Sections 391-394 Madras HC sanctioned a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391-394 between a company and its secured debenture holders. The scheme was approved by 93.16% ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Company scheme of arrangement sanctioned after 93% debenture holder approval under Sections 391-394

                              Madras HC sanctioned a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391-394 between a company and its secured debenture holders. The scheme was approved by 93.16% of debenture holders, with the company's Founder-Director filing an affidavit accepting the arrangement and undertaking compliance. The court found substantial assets available to discharge debenture holders' claims and granted the company petition as prayed, sanctioning the proposed scheme of arrangement.




                              Issues Involved:

                              1. Sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
                              2. Financial status and operations of Viswapriya (India) Limited.
                              3. Approval process and objections regarding the Scheme of Arrangement.
                              4. Compliance with procedural requirements for convening a meeting of debenture holders.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement:

                              The primary issue was whether the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between Viswapriya (India) Limited and its secured debenture holders should be sanctioned under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, a significant shareholder of Viswapriya (India) Limited, sought the court's approval for a rescheduling of the secured debenture obligations. The scheme aimed to ensure that all debenture holders were paid fully, including interest for delayed payment, without impairing the company's operations. The court sanctioned the scheme, noting that 93.16% of the debenture holders agreed to it, and the company had substantial assets to fulfill its obligations.

                              2. Financial Status and Operations of Viswapriya (India) Limited:

                              Viswapriya (India) Limited had a net worth of over Rs. 32 Crores and had consistently reported profits. The company was solvent, with assets exceeding its liabilities, allowing for full repayment of debts. However, due to weakened economic conditions, there was a temporary liquidity squeeze. The company had a fund base of Rs. 164.90 Crores as of 31.3.2012, with Rs. 119.21 Crores in secured borrowings via debentures. The scheme proposed to reschedule these obligations to protect the company's operations and the interests of all stakeholders.

                              3. Approval Process and Objections Regarding the Scheme of Arrangement:

                              The court considered objections from certain debenture holders and third parties, which were addressed through interim orders. Despite initial resistance, almost all objectors eventually agreed to the scheme. The Central Government Standing Counsel did not file any objections. The court emphasized that the substantial majority approval by debenture holders (93.16%) and the undertaking by the company's Founder-Director to abide by the scheme were pivotal in its decision to sanction the arrangement.

                              4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Convening a Meeting of Debenture Holders:

                              The court had previously ordered the convening of a meeting of secured debenture holders, appointing a Chairman to oversee the process. The meeting was conducted with strict adherence to procedural requirements, including notice publication and quorum stipulations. The Chairman's report confirmed that the meeting was attended by 2,164 debenture holders, representing a significant portion of the total debentures. The report indicated overwhelming support for the scheme, with 93.16% voting in favor. The court found that the procedural compliance and the substantial majority approval justified sanctioning the scheme.

                              In conclusion, the court ordered the sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement as proposed, recognizing the overwhelming support from debenture holders and the company's capacity to meet its obligations under the scheme.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found