TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bank's Scheme Validity Challenged: Decree-holders vs. Depositors' Rights</h1> <h3>Natore Kamala Bank Ltd., In re</h3> The court examined the validity of a bank's arrangement scheme for depositors, addressing the petitioner's challenge to a scheme preventing deposit ... Compromise and arrangement Issues:1. Validity of a scheme of arrangement proposed by a bank for depositors.2. Whether a decree-holder is bound by a scheme approved by depositors.3. Court's power to modify or alter a scheme under section 153 of the Companies Act.4. Remedy available to parties affected by a scheme under section 153.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the validity of a scheme of arrangement proposed by a bank for its depositors. In this case, the petitioner, a depositor, challenged the scheme approved at a meeting he did not attend. The scheme included a provision preventing depositors from withdrawing their deposits for 12 years. The petitioner sought to have the scheme cancelled or modified, arguing that he had become a judgment creditor by obtaining a decree, and thus should not be treated as a depositor under the scheme. The petitioner's delay in bringing the petition was noted, and the court refused to grant it solely based on this delay.2. The court referred to previous decisions to determine whether a decree-holder is bound by a scheme approved by depositors. Citing a case where a decree-holder was held not bound by a scheme adopted by depositors, the court highlighted that a decree-holder's rights differ from those of a depositor, as the former's rights arise from a decree rather than a deposit contract. The court emphasized the distinction between depositors and decree-holders, indicating that decree-holders may belong to a different class under section 153 of the Companies Act. Conflicting decisions on this issue were noted, but the court expressed agreement with the view that decree-holders are distinct from depositors.3. The court addressed the issue of its power to modify or alter a scheme under section 153 of the Companies Act. It highlighted that the court's powers are limited to either sanctioning or refusing to sanction a scheme approved by the company and its creditors or members. The court emphasized that it cannot modify a scheme without the agreement of the parties involved. The court criticized the approach taken in previous cases where schemes were modified without proper consideration by the parties. It stressed the importance of allowing parties to consider and agree to any modifications to a scheme before they are implemented.4. Lastly, the court discussed the remedy available to parties affected by a scheme under section 153. It noted that parties who have not opposed a scheme at a meeting or during a hearing have limited appeal rights. The court highlighted that the petitioner's proper remedy in this case would have been to appeal the order made by the judge who sanctioned the scheme. The court emphasized that the petitioner's contention regarding his status as a depositor should be decided during the execution of the decree. Ultimately, due to various reasons, including the delay in filing the application, the court dismissed the petition with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
