Supreme Court: Failure to Recover Murder Weapon is Not Fatal if Other Evidence is Credible  ||  SC: Failure to Pay Balance Within 15 Days Voids Auction under Maharashtra Co-Operative Rules  ||  Bombay High Court: State Cannot Deny Maternity Benefits As More Women Join Workforce  ||  Bombay High Court: Lack of Medical Opinion on Sexual Assault Not Fatal under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay High Court: Presence of Cross or Jesus Statue Doesn't Make One Christian  ||  Allahabad High Court: Re-Recording a Victim’s Statement is Allowed Only in Exceptional Cases  ||  Calcutta HC: Discriminatory Excise Rule Modified To Ensure Equality  ||  SC: Supreme Court Orders Expansion And Reform Of Open Prisons  ||  SC: Parallel Insolvency Proceedings Allowed Against Debtor And Guarantor  ||  SC: Clear Deed Terms Cannot Be Altered Later    

Re Bardoc Gold Ltd; Ex Parte Bardoc Gold Ltd. - (07 Apr 2022)

Low shareholder turnout does not prevent the Court from making orders approving a scheme of arrangement

Commercial

On 1 April 2022, Bardoc Gold Ltd moved for orders approving a scheme of arrangement between Bardoc and its shareholders pursuant to Section 411(4), and if necessary Section 411(6) of the Corporations Act, 2001.

Section 411 of the Corporations Act envisages three steps. First, the court approves the convening of a scheme meeting and the draft explanatory statement to be sent to the scheme members. Secondly, the members vote on the proposed scheme at the scheme meeting. Thirdly, assuming the first two stages have occurred, a further application to the court for approval of the arrangement.

There is no evidence that the Bardoc shareholders voted for an improper purpose. he proposed scheme was of such a nature that there was no apparent reason that it should not receive approval if the requisite voting majorities were achieved at the scheme meeting. It is well accepted that, low shareholder turnout does not prevent the court from making orders approving a scheme of arrangement.

Nothing has occurred since the date of the first hearing to change this view. The independent expert report opined that in the absence of an alternate proposal, the scheme is in the best interests of Bardoc shareholders. No alternate proposal emerged. The shareholders of Bardoc who voted at the scheme meeting overwhelmingly supported the proposed scheme and no Bardoc shareholder appeared to oppose the orders sought at the second court hearing. The proposed scheme is fair and reasonable and is a scheme that sensible business people might consider to be of benefit to the shareholders of Bardoc.

There was no evidence before the court that any minority has been oppressed. There was no evidence before the court that the proposed scheme offends any aspect of public policy. Given the nature of the proposed scheme, it could not be sensibly suggested that the scheme offends public policy. The substantive and procedural requirements of Section 411(4) of the Corporations Act had been satisfied. The proposed scheme has been approved.

Tags : ARRANGEMENT   SCHEME   APPROVAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved