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 a scheme sanctioned under Section 153 of the Companies Act bound a decree-holder who had obtained his decree before sanction, notwithstanding alleged non-service of notice of the meeting and the absence of a separate meeting of decree-holders.
Analysis: The scheme was proposed for all depositors, including those who had already sued and obtained decrees, and the sanctioned scheme expressly included that class. In execution proceedings, the executing court was concerned only with whether the execution was affected by the sanctioned scheme and whether the sanction order had jurisdiction; it could not reassess whether the scheme ought to have been sanctioned differently. The alleged defects in notice and in the holding of separate meetings did not go to jurisdiction in the original court exercising company jurisdiction, but at most amounted to irregularities. The scheme therefore remained operative against the decree-holder and barred execution.
Conclusion: The decree-holder was bound by the sanctioned scheme and the execution application was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: An executing court cannot treat procedural defects in the making of a sanctioned company scheme as defeating its binding force where the sanctioning court had jurisdiction over the subject matter; such defects are only irregularities unless they render the proceeding a nullity.
TaxTMI 
