https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97658 The article explains the legal standard for challenging a statutory scheme as unfair under company reorganisation rules: a dissenting shareholder bears a heavy onus to prove the scheme is "unfair" in the sense used in prior authorities, which requires obvious, patent and convincing unfairness. Criticisms of the circular, alternative valuations or possibility of a better scheme are insufficient absent bad faith or intentional misleading. Market quotations showing higher value of substituted shares and acceptance by a statutory majority weighed against unfairness. The applicant failed to discharge the onus and relief was refused. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:59:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97658 The article explains the legal standard for challenging a statutory scheme as unfair under company reorganisation rules: a dissenting shareholder bears a heavy onus to prove the scheme is "unfair" in the sense used in prior authorities, which requires obvious, patent and convincing unfairness. Criticisms of the circular, alternative valuations or possibility of a better scheme are insufficient absent bad faith or intentional misleading. Market quotations showing higher value of substituted shares and acceptance by a statutory majority weighed against unfairness. The applicant failed to discharge the onus and relief was refused. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 22 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97658