Bombay HC: Wife Humiliating Husband in Front of His Friends is Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Delhi HC Interprets Doctrine of “Compelled Self-Publication”,  ||  Del. HC Issues Summons to Campus Sutra in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Footwear Brand Campus  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Restraining Order against PRADA  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Bypass Bar on Revision of Interlocutory Order by Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi HC: Prosecutrix’s Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination Weakens the Case  ||  Bom. HC: No Provision under JJ Act that Allows Adoption of a Child of Foreign Citizenship  ||  SC Passes Order to Prevent Russian Mother’s Attempt to Flee with Child  ||  SC: Deprivation of Natural Heir from Will May Not Raise Suspicion  ||  SC: Denying Female Heir Right in Property Only Exacerbates Gender Division    

Louis N O and Others vs. Fenwick N O and Others - (28 Apr 2023)

Once a business rescue plan is accepted, it will be implemented by the business rescue practitioner on the terms stipulated therein

Company

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether in business rescue proceedings, Section 153(4) of the Companies Act, 2008 is to be applied after a binding offer made in terms of Section 153(1)(b)(ii) of the Act has been rejected.

The literal meaning of Section 153(4) is clear, it says that if an affected person makes an offer, the practitioner must act as prescribed in Sections 153(4)(a) and (b). It further held that it is trite that a court may depart from the clear and unambiguous meaning of a statutory provision to avoid an absurdity and that the mere making of an offer in terms of Section 153(1)(b)(ii) could not have been intended to trigger the conjunctive steps mentioned in Sections 153(4)(a) and (b).

Once a business rescue plan is accepted, it will be implemented by the business rescue practitioner on the terms stipulated therein. But once a business rescue plan has been put to a vote and rejected as contemplated in Section 152 of the Act and, the parties have unsuccessfully exhausted their remedies as provided for in Section 153(1)(b), business rescue must come to an end.

It could not have been the legislature’s intention that a party whose voting interests remains unaltered as a result of the rejection of a binding offer, would be entitled to a further opportunity to exercise one of the alternatives provided for in Section 153(1)(b)(i) of the Act, holding that the interpretation contended for by the appellants simply does not amount to a sensible and business-like interpretation of Section 153(4) of the Act. Section 153(4) of the Act only finds application when a binding offer in terms of Section 153(1)(b)(ii) is accepted. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : BUSINESS RESCUE   PROCEEDINGS   OFFER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved