https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111265 A compromise scheme with unsecured creditors was scrutinised on notice, class composition, voting and ballot validity. Absence of individual notices to objecting creditors did not invalidate the meeting because the meeting was court-directed, the creditors attended and voted, and no deliberate suppression or proved prejudice was shown. A related-party unsecured creditor was not required to be treated as a separate class, because separate meetings are needed only where legal rights or treatment under the scheme materially differ. Allegations of inflated liabilities were not established on the record. Rejection of ballots was upheld where proper corporate authorisation was not produced in time. The revised scheme was found fair and compliant, and was sanctioned. en-us Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:15:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111265 A compromise scheme with unsecured creditors was scrutinised on notice, class composition, voting and ballot validity. Absence of individual notices to objecting creditors did not invalidate the meeting because the meeting was court-directed, the creditors attended and voted, and no deliberate suppression or proved prejudice was shown. A related-party unsecured creditor was not required to be treated as a separate class, because separate meetings are needed only where legal rights or treatment under the scheme materially differ. Allegations of inflated liabilities were not established on the record. Rejection of ballots was upheld where proper corporate authorisation was not produced in time. The revised scheme was found fair and compliant, and was sanctioned. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111265