<?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>1988 (2) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101739</link>
    <description>A scheme of compromise and arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956 was sanctioned after the court found compliance with the statutory procedure, proper disclosure of material particulars and financial position, and fair representation of the affected classes. The meetings of creditors, debenture-holders and shareholders were duly convened, and the scheme received unanimous approval with minor modifications. Objections of vagueness, discrimination and non-disclosure were rejected because the scheme was supported by the disclosed record, showed no mala fides, and appeared feasible and workable for revival of the company. The arrangement was therefore approved and made binding on the company and its creditors, shareholders and debenture-holders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:23:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101739</link>
      <description>A scheme of compromise and arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956 was sanctioned after the court found compliance with the statutory procedure, proper disclosure of material particulars and financial position, and fair representation of the affected classes. The meetings of creditors, debenture-holders and shareholders were duly convened, and the scheme received unanimous approval with minor modifications. Objections of vagueness, discrimination and non-disclosure were rejected because the scheme was supported by the disclosed record, showed no mala fides, and appeared feasible and workable for revival of the company. The arrangement was therefore approved and made binding on the company and its creditors, shareholders and debenture-holders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>