SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

Re Western Areas Ltd; Ex Parte Western Areas Ltd. - (10 Jun 2022)

Court has a discretion to approve a scheme under Section 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act and is not bound to approve a scheme just because the statutory majorities have been achieved

Commercial

The Plaintiff applies for orders approving a proposed scheme of arrangement. The Scheme meeting was convened and held on 1 June 2022. At the meeting, the resolution was passed by the requisite statutory majorities.

The approval of the proposed Scheme pursuant to Section 411(4)(b) of the Corporations Act, 2001, or the second court hearing, is the third stage of approval for a scheme of arrangement. The second stage is the approval of the Scheme by the requisite statutory majorities, which occurred at the Scheme meeting. At the second court hearing, the court has two tasks: (a) to ensure that all statutory and procedural requirements have been satisfied. This includes confirming that: (i) the meeting was convened and held in accordance with the court's earlier orders; (ii) the resolutions were passed with the requisite statutory majorities; and (iii) the plaintiff otherwise complied with the court's earlier orders; (b) to determine, in the exercise of the court's discretion, whether to approve the proposed arrangement.

The court has a discretion to approve a scheme under Section 411(4)(b) of the Act and is not bound to approve a scheme just because the court previously made orders for the convening of a meeting or because the statutory majorities have been achieved. Said, the court will usually approach the task on the basis that shareholders are better judges of what is in their commercial interests than the court.

There is no evidence that the Western Areas shareholders voted for an improper purpose. Its members voted in good faith. The 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. There was no evidence that any minority has been oppressed. There is no evidence before the court that the proposed Scheme offends any aspect of public policy. Present Court is satisfied the substantive and procedural requirements under Section 411(4) of the Act had been satisfied and present Court approves the proposed Scheme.

Tags : RESOLUTION   SCHEME   APPROVAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved