9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an to an extent of ₹ 8,000 crores is not available. No material is placed as to how the petitioner will mobilise the subsidy to an extent of ₹ 1,600 crores. Thus, on the face of it the petitioner-company is not able to mobilise a sum of ₹ 9,600 crores as against the total requirement of ₹ 10,100 crores. On the face of it, the proposed scheme is not viable, practicable and the same is not in the interest of the members, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the respondent-company-in-liquidation. - CO.P. NO. 2 OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2010 - H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, J. Shreyas Jayasimha for the Petitioner. V. Jayaram for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsecured creditors. Accordingly, the meetings were held and the Chairman of the meetings had filed a report on 2-1-2004. The present petition is filed seeking sanction of the compromise or arrangement scheme so as to bind all the members, secured and unsecured creditors of the respondent-company (In Liquidation). This Court vide order dated 25-3-2004 admitted the petition, directed the petitioner-company to take out paper publication and directed to issue notice to the Regional Director and also the Official Liquidator. The Regional Director, the Official Liquidator, the secured creditor, workmen and others have filed their objections opposing the revival scheme of the respondent-company. 5. Heard arguments on both the side and peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven though approved by a majority of the concerned creditors or members the Court has to be satisfied that the company or any other person moving such an application for sanction under sub-section (2) of section 391 has disclosed all the relevant matters mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (2) of that section. So far as the meetings of the creditors or members, or their respective classes for whom the Scheme is proposed are concerned, it is enjoined by section 391(1)( a ) that the requisite information as contemplated by the said provision is also required to be placed for consideration of the concerned voters so that the parties concerned before whom the scheme is placed for voting can take an informed and objective decision whether to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me gets sanctioned by the Court, it would bind even the dissenting minority shareholders or creditors. Therefore, the fairness of the scheme qua them also has to be kept in view by the Company Court while putting its seal of approval on the concerned scheme placed for its sanction. It is, of course, true that so far as the Company Court is concerned as per the statutory provisions of sections 391 and 393 of the Act, the question of voidability of the scheme will have to be judged subject to the rider that a scheme sanctioned by majority will remain binding to a dissenting minority of creditors or members, as the case may be, even though they have not consented to such a scheme and to that extent absence of their consent will have no effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditors and members of the company who have ratified the Scheme by the requisite majority. Consequently the Company Court s jurisdiction to that extent is peripheral and supervisory and not appellate. The Court acts like an umpire in accordance with law game of cricket who has to see that both the teams play their game according to the rules and do not overstep the limits. But subject to that how best the game is to be played is left to the players and not the umpire. . . . ." 7. Keeping the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. It is not in dispute that this Court vide order dated 14-10-2003 in C.A. No. 1357/2000 directed to hold separate me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner-company is a sister concern of the respondent-company (In Liquidation). The Directors in the petitioner-company and the respondent-company are family members. The intention of filing this petition under the guise of revival scheme is only to delay the dues payable to the workers. It is stated that the respondent-company (In Liquidation) are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5 crores and more to the workers on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity and Lay-off Compensation. 9. I perused the revival scheme placed by petitioner-company. In the revival scheme, it is not specified as to how the funds will be mobilised for discharge of the existing liabilities to the workmen, secured creditor and unsecured creditors. Except asserting that within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
