1937 (1) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y called and held on the 18th March 1934. The creditors did not find the scheme propounded by the Company acceptable to them and the meeting ended in a fiasco. On the 22nd March 1934, another petition to the same effect was made by certain creditors putting forward a different set of proposals. Thereupon, the Court allowed a second meeting to be called which was held on the 6th May 1934. On the 15th May 1934, a meeting of the members of the Company was held, in which the proposals originally embodied in the application of the 22nd March and subsequently approved on the 6th May were unanimously adopted. The proceedings of the meeting of the 6th May 1934 were submitted to the Court for sanction which however the Court very rightly refused on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reditors was not bound by the decision arrived at in those meetings; and 2.That he being a judgment-creditor did not belong to the class of the creditors who held the meetings and was hence not bound by the compromise. We have heard counsel at length and have come to the conclusion that there is no force in either of the points raised. Section 153 does not make it obligatory either upon the Court or the Company to serve a notice of the creditors' meeting on each and every creditor of the Company and we have not been referred to any law which would invalidate a decision arrived at by the creditors and the Company in the absence of any individual creditor. On the other hand, at page 364 of Rustomji's Company Law a case has been cited in wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cree against the Bank before the scheme framed by the depositors was approved by the Court. Henderson, J. held that the scheme was not binding on her as she was no longer a depositor but a judgment-creditor and her interest was not in any way the same as that of the depositors. In Manikganj Banking & Trading Co. v. Madhabendra Kumar Saha a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court composed of Guha and Bartley, JJ. reaffirmed this principle. As against this, counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to three other judgments of the same High Court which support his contention. In Serajganj Loan Office v. Nilakanta Lahiri, Mitter, J. held that unsecured creditors of a Company who had already obtained decrees against the Company were w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X