Fraud allegations cannot reopen a scheme approval already affirmed by higher courts where the record shows no substantive fraud.

A scheme approval could not be reopened on an allegation of fraud where the scheme had already been approved by a substantial creditor majority and earlier affirmed up to the Supreme Court. The record showed that the appellant had not filed objections before the company court, and the authorities said to have been incorrectly recorded had not themselves challenged the scheme. Applying the doctrine of merger, the prior appellate affirmation remained operative, and the alleged factual mistake in recording objections was not treated as fraud sufficient to nullify the approval. The challenge was therefore rejected and the scheme approval left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the scheme approval and the impugned order could be reopened on the allegation of fraud despite prior affirmation of the scheme by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the claim that certain observations in the impugned order were factually incorrect and therefore amounted to fraud. The record showed that the scheme had been approved by a substantial creditor majority, no objections had been filed by the appellant before the company court, and the authorities said to have been wrongly recorded had not themselves challenged the scheme. The earlier appellate order approving the scheme had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court, attracting the doctrine of merger. On the facts placed, the alleged mistake in recording objections did not amount to fraud so as to nullify the approval.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The scheme approval was not liable to be recalled or interfered with on the ground of fraud.

---