<?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>2010 (8) TMI 186 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113168</link>
    <description>Sanction of a compromise or arrangement for revival under the Companies Act, 1956 requires proper convening of the relevant class meetings, requisite approval, and a scheme that is fair, lawful and commercially viable. The proposed revival arrangement failed because the secured creditor had opposed it, the meeting was not held in the manner earlier directed for secured creditors, and the proposal did not disclose any concrete means of mobilising funds or discharging admitted liabilities. A revival plan unsupported by material particulars and viability was therefore not fit for sanction, and approval was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 186 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113168</link>
      <description>Sanction of a compromise or arrangement for revival under the Companies Act, 1956 requires proper convening of the relevant class meetings, requisite approval, and a scheme that is fair, lawful and commercially viable. The proposed revival arrangement failed because the secured creditor had opposed it, the meeting was not held in the manner earlier directed for secured creditors, and the proposal did not disclose any concrete means of mobilising funds or discharging admitted liabilities. A revival plan unsupported by material particulars and viability was therefore not fit for sanction, and approval was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>