<?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>1999 (6) TMI 417 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105217</link>
    <description>Under section 391, a compromise or arrangement can be sanctioned only if the meeting is properly convened for a correctly constituted class and the proposal is approved at that meeting by the statutory majority. A modified scheme failed because the meeting departed from the court&#039;s directions, included persons outside the defined class, and did not secure the required three-fourths majority in value. Later letters and affidavits could not be used to alter votes after the meeting or reconstruct approval. The scheme was also refused as the creditor classification was defective and the proposed arrangement was not shown to be commercially feasible or reasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:49:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 417 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105217</link>
      <description>Under section 391, a compromise or arrangement can be sanctioned only if the meeting is properly convened for a correctly constituted class and the proposal is approved at that meeting by the statutory majority. A modified scheme failed because the meeting departed from the court&#039;s directions, included persons outside the defined class, and did not secure the required three-fourths majority in value. Later letters and affidavits could not be used to alter votes after the meeting or reconstruct approval. The scheme was also refused as the creditor classification was defective and the proposed arrangement was not shown to be commercially feasible or reasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>