https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110130 Pendency of proceedings before BIFR did not, by itself, exclude the company court's jurisdiction to sanction an amalgamation scheme under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, because no inconsistency with the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was shown and the statutory bar provisions were inapplicable. The Court also rejected objections to the scheme concerning exchange ratio, authorised capital, creditors' meeting, and the equity subscription agreement, holding that the explanations offered were sufficient, the creditors were not prejudiced, and a contractual restriction could not override statutory jurisdiction. The scheme was treated as fair and in the interest of the companies, members, and creditors, and sanction was granted. en-us Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110130 Pendency of proceedings before BIFR did not, by itself, exclude the company court's jurisdiction to sanction an amalgamation scheme under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, because no inconsistency with the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was shown and the statutory bar provisions were inapplicable. The Court also rejected objections to the scheme concerning exchange ratio, authorised capital, creditors' meeting, and the equity subscription agreement, holding that the explanations offered were sufficient, the creditors were not prejudiced, and a contractual restriction could not override statutory jurisdiction. The scheme was treated as fair and in the interest of the companies, members, and creditors, and sanction was granted. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110130