https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459629 A scheme of arrangement sanctioned under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not liable to be interfered with merely because a claimant asserted creditor status and did not receive individual notice. The Company Court's role is supervisory, limited to statutory compliance, requisite majority approval, disclosure of material facts, and consistency with law and public policy; it does not review commercial wisdom. As the appellant's claim was disputed and pending in arbitration, and was secured by a bank guarantee, absence of individual notice did not invalidate sanction. The fraud and non-disclosure challenge also failed because no affidavit with particulars was filed, so no factual basis existed to refuse sanction. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:18:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459629 A scheme of arrangement sanctioned under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not liable to be interfered with merely because a claimant asserted creditor status and did not receive individual notice. The Company Court's role is supervisory, limited to statutory compliance, requisite majority approval, disclosure of material facts, and consistency with law and public policy; it does not review commercial wisdom. As the appellant's claim was disputed and pending in arbitration, and was secured by a bank guarantee, absence of individual notice did not invalidate sanction. The fraud and non-disclosure challenge also failed because no affidavit with particulars was filed, so no factual basis existed to refuse sanction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459629