Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Accordingly, the aforesaid objection raised about the non-disclosure of material interest stands rejected.

14. Objections were also raised with regard to the manner and mode of holding the meetings, as also the resolutions adopted in the aforesaid meetings. According to the objectors, the meeting of the shareholders convened is no meeting at all in the eye of law. The aforesaid objection has been considered by me and in order to appreciate the same I have also carefully perused the reports submitted by the Chairperson and the Alternate Chairperson who were appointed by order dated February 3, 2003. Along with their reports they have also submitted certain documents which were also perused by me while appreciating the aforesaid objections raised by the objectors. It is disclosed there from that a notice containing a copy of the scheme of arrangement, explanatory statement and proxy form duly approved by the registry of this Court and the details of the Chairperson appointed by this Court for the meetings was served by way of U.P.C. upon each of the shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the companies. Notices of the meetings were also published in two newspapers of February 28, 2003. The reports of the Chairperson containing an affidavit prove and establish the aforesaid facts. One of the objections raised is that only half an hour time was given for the meeting of the shareholders which was inadequate in view of the capacity of the hall and the attendance. The timings of the three meetings were fixed by this Court in the order dated February 3, 2003. While fixing the time schedule of the aforesaid three meetings, this Court considered all the factors and thereafter fixed the schedule of timings of the three meetings and, therefore, no such objection could be raised by the objectors alleging that time given for the meeting was inadequate. Section 391(2) requires the scheme to be passed by 3/4th of the value of the creditors or the class of creditors, present and voting in person or through proxy at the meeting. In the present case, 151 shareholders of the company were present and the scheme has been unanimously approved by 99.99% of the shareholders present and voting. The three objectors who have raised objections along with two others did not approve the scheme of arrangement. In that view of the matter, the capacity of the hall and attendance has no relevance and relation for considering and approving the scheme of arrangement. It was also sought to be contended by the objectors that the amendment sought to be introduced and raised by Rupan Khosla was not allowed to be raised by the Chairperson of the meeting. In this connection reference can be made to the report of the Chairperson who has stated in his report in the following manner:-