https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109074 The court determined that the majority required under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, should represent three-fourths in value of creditors/shareholders present and voting at the meeting, either in person or by proxy. This interpretation aligns with the unambiguous language of the provision and principles of statutory interpretation to avoid redundancy. Contrary views were dismissed, emphasizing that requiring a majority of the total value would be impractical and render key terms redundant. The decision clarified the proper understanding of the majority requirement in company compromises or arrangements. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2018 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109074 The court determined that the majority required under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, should represent three-fourths in value of creditors/shareholders present and voting at the meeting, either in person or by proxy. This interpretation aligns with the unambiguous language of the provision and principles of statutory interpretation to avoid redundancy. Contrary views were dismissed, emphasizing that requiring a majority of the total value would be impractical and render key terms redundant. The decision clarified the proper understanding of the majority requirement in company compromises or arrangements. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109074