Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 106 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 107 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 192A in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 48 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 87 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 391 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Miheer H. Mafatlal vs Mafatlal Industries Ltd on 11 September, 1996
27. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MIHEER H. MAFATLAL v. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 87 COMPANY CASES 792 has observed in the context of Scheme of Amalgamation that once the broad parameters about the requirements of Scheme for getting sanction of the Court are found to have been met, the Court will have no further jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the majority of the class of persons who with their open eyes have given their approval to the Scheme. Even if in the view of the Court, there would be a better Scheme for the company and its members or Creditors for whom the Scheme is framed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the bonafides of the majority acting as a group have to be examined, vis.a.vis., the Scheme in question and not the bonafides of the person whose personal interest might be different from the interests of the voters as a class. The bonafides of a person can only be relevant if it can be established with reasonable certainty that he represents the majority or is the controller of the majority. These observations are equally applicable to the facts of the present case. First of all, the objector GIIC has not remained present at the meeting nor it represents the majority of the Equity Shareholders. The objection raised by GIIC on this count is, therefore, not sustainable and hence, it is rejected.