<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1935 (3) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96672</link>
    <description>An unsecured creditor who has reduced its claim to decree is not, by that fact alone, a separate class for a reconstruction scheme under the Companies Act. The governing test is whether the creditors&#039; rights are so dissimilar that they cannot consult together with a view to their common interest; here, decree-holder and non-decree unsecured creditors were held sufficiently similar to consult jointly. The objection that a separate meeting was required for decree-holder unsecured creditors therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:29:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (3) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96672</link>
      <description>An unsecured creditor who has reduced its claim to decree is not, by that fact alone, a separate class for a reconstruction scheme under the Companies Act. The governing test is whether the creditors&#039; rights are so dissimilar that they cannot consult together with a view to their common interest; here, decree-holder and non-decree unsecured creditors were held sufficiently similar to consult jointly. The objection that a separate meeting was required for decree-holder unsecured creditors therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>