<?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>2005 (6) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110095</link>
    <description>At the stage of an application under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, the High Court ordinarily does not finally determine the merits of the proposed compromise or whether the scheme is mala fide, fraudulent, or otherwise contrary to law; those objections are reserved for consideration at the meeting and sanction stage, so directions to convene meetings were granted. On class composition, the court held that the proposed treatment of debenture holders as a separate class should not be finally resolved at this preliminary stage, and a separate meeting was not directed then. The guiding principle was that refusal at the threshold is justified only where the application is prima facie unsustainable or palpably contrary to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:55:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110095</link>
      <description>At the stage of an application under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, the High Court ordinarily does not finally determine the merits of the proposed compromise or whether the scheme is mala fide, fraudulent, or otherwise contrary to law; those objections are reserved for consideration at the meeting and sanction stage, so directions to convene meetings were granted. On class composition, the court held that the proposed treatment of debenture holders as a separate class should not be finally resolved at this preliminary stage, and a separate meeting was not directed then. The guiding principle was that refusal at the threshold is justified only where the application is prima facie unsustainable or palpably contrary to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>