9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 391(2) of the Companies Act regarding approval of a scheme. 2. Consideration of the right of a landlord seeking eviction due to non-payment of rent. 3. Evaluation of the feasibility and workability of a scheme for company revival. 4. Assessment of the company's financial position and ability to meet creditor claims. 5. Examination of the court's duty to revive a company while ensuring fairness to creditors. Analysis: 1. The judgment involved a dispute arising from the rejection of a scheme of arrangement under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant contended that if the majority of shareholders and creditors approved the scheme, the court should have accepted it for company rehabilitation. However, the court found the scheme unworkable due to the company's lack of activity since 1979, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 2. The landlord sought eviction of the company for non-payment of rent, with the court considering the landlord's rights in light of the company's inactivity and the scheme's questionable motives. The court concluded that the scheme was an attempt to retain premises illegally, leading to the eviction order being upheld. 3. The judgment extensively discussed the feasibility and workability of the proposed scheme for company revival. The court emphasized the need for schemes to genuinely aim at company rehabilitation rather than ulterior motives like retaining premises. The failure to obtain necessary permits and lack of efforts to address financial obligations led to the scheme's rejection. 4. The court examined the company's financial position, including its inability to pay rent arrears, lack of buses or permits, and failure to settle creditor claims. The court noted the opposition from the regional director and the need to settle dues before reviving the company, ultimately leading to the rejection of the scheme. 5. In considering the duty to revive a company, the court highlighted the importance of assessing scheme feasibility, completeness, and fairness to creditors. Emphasizing the court's obligation to ensure genuine company revival, the judgment upheld the decision to reject the scheme and issue an eviction decree based on the company's financial status and lack of viable plans for revival. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the scheme and the eviction decree based on the company's financial difficulties and the scheme's lack of viability.
|
