https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106516 In a scheme involving reduction of share capital and payment to shareholders, the Court distinguished between dispensing with procedure and dispensing with substantive creditor-protection rights. It held that earlier orders waiving the creditors' meeting and list-settlement procedure did not extinguish creditors' entitlement to object or seek security at the petition hearing. The Court also stated that section 101(2)(c) permits only a summary inquiry into security, not a full trial of disputed claims. Applying that approach, agreed creditor claims were satisfied, one objection was withdrawn, and the contested claim did not justify security because part of it appeared time-barred and the rest involved a live contractual dispute. The scheme, as amended, was sanctioned. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:35:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106516 In a scheme involving reduction of share capital and payment to shareholders, the Court distinguished between dispensing with procedure and dispensing with substantive creditor-protection rights. It held that earlier orders waiving the creditors' meeting and list-settlement procedure did not extinguish creditors' entitlement to object or seek security at the petition hearing. The Court also stated that section 101(2)(c) permits only a summary inquiry into security, not a full trial of disputed claims. Applying that approach, agreed creditor claims were satisfied, one objection was withdrawn, and the contested claim did not justify security because part of it appeared time-barred and the rest involved a live contractual dispute. The scheme, as amended, was sanctioned. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106516