https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97012 The articles, read as a whole, were construed as limiting preference shareholders to preferential dividends and repayment of paid-up capital on winding up; they had no additional right to participate in surplus assets, which remained for ordinary shareholders. In assessing the proposed reduction of capital, section 25 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946 was treated as relevant but not determinative of fairness under the Companies Act, 1929. Because the preference shareholders had no certain enforceable entitlement to a better adjustment, and the reduction only accelerated repayment otherwise due on winding up, the proposal was regarded as fair and equitable. en-us Fri, 06 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:29:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97012 The articles, read as a whole, were construed as limiting preference shareholders to preferential dividends and repayment of paid-up capital on winding up; they had no additional right to participate in surplus assets, which remained for ordinary shareholders. In assessing the proposed reduction of capital, section 25 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946 was treated as relevant but not determinative of fairness under the Companies Act, 1929. Because the preference shareholders had no certain enforceable entitlement to a better adjustment, and the reduction only accelerated repayment otherwise due on winding up, the proposal was regarded as fair and equitable. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 May 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97012