https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329680 All equity shareholders having filed unanimous written consents, the Court dispensed with the equity shareholders' meeting for the proposed composite scheme. The reduction-related procedure under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules 48 to 65 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was also dispensed with because the proposed use of the securities premium account was consequential to the scheme, did not involve diminution of unpaid share capital, and did not require payment to shareholders; the written consents operated as the special resolution. A meeting of unsecured creditors was still directed to be convened for consideration of the scheme. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:35:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329680 All equity shareholders having filed unanimous written consents, the Court dispensed with the equity shareholders' meeting for the proposed composite scheme. The reduction-related procedure under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules 48 to 65 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was also dispensed with because the proposed use of the securities premium account was consequential to the scheme, did not involve diminution of unpaid share capital, and did not require payment to shareholders; the written consents operated as the special resolution. A meeting of unsecured creditors was still directed to be convened for consideration of the scheme. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329680