P&H HC: Offence u/s 295A won’t be Attracted if Act done Without Malicious Intent  ||  Ker. HC: No Liability on RTO to Pay Compensation if Vehicle Owner Fails to get it Insured  ||  Guj. HC: Elected Members Must Not Disrepute the Institution to Which they are Elected  ||  All. HC: Scheme of A&C Act Put no Limitation for Application of Doctrine of Severability to an Award  ||  Kar. HC: Apprehension of Not Getting a Fair Trial is Required to Seek Transfer of Case  ||  Ker. HC: Not Granting Divorce Despite Mutual Consent Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Tel. HC: Elders in the House Can’t Decide Custody of Child  ||  All. HC: Gravity of Misconduct and Past Conduct Relevant to be Considered by Disciplinary Authority  ||  P&H HC Issues Guidelines on Proclamation u/s 82 CrPC  ||  SC: Can File Complaint Under Repealed FERA Provisions During Sunset Period After Enforcement of FEMA    

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


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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved