Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 391 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
Section 394A in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 443 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 446 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
M/S Meghal Homes Pvt. Ltd vs Shree Niwas Girni K.K.Samiti & Ors on 24 August, 2007
It is, therefore, apparent that the object of the scheme is not to revive the
activities of the wound up company but it is a ruse to dispose of the assets of the
company by a private arrangement and in such a situation, as pointed out by the
Apex Court in the case of M/s. Meghal Homes Private Ltd. (supra), it is the duty
of the Court in which the properties are vested on liquidation, to dispose of the
properties, realize the assets and distribute the same in accordance with law.
The Companies Act, 1956
Miheer H. Mafatlal vs Mafatlal Industries Ltd on 11 September, 1996
"We see no difficulty in reconciling the need to satisfy the requirements of
both Sections 391 to 394A and Section 466 of the Companies Act while
dealing with a Company which has been ordered to be wound up. In other
words, we find no incongruity in looking into aspects of public interest,
commercial morality and the bona fide intention to revive a company while
considering whether a compromise or arrangement put forward in terms of
Section 391 of the Companies Act should be accepted or not. We see no
conflict in applying both the provisions and in harmoniously construing
them and in finding that while the court will not sit in appeal over the
commercial wisdom of the shareholders of a company, it will certainly
consider whether there is a genuine attempt to revive the company that has
gone into liquidation and whether such revival is in public interest and
conforms to commercial morality. We cannot understand the decision in
Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) as standing in the
way of understanding the scope of the provisions of the Act in the above
manner. We are therefore satisfied that the Company Court was
bound to consider whether the liquidation was liable to be stayed
for a period or permanently while adverting to the question
whether the Scheme is one for revival of the company or that part
of the business of the company which it is permissible to revive
under the relevant laws or whether it is a ruse to dispose of the
assets of the company by a private arrangement. If it comes to the
latter conclusion, then it is the duty of the court in which the
13
properties are vested on liquidation, to dispose of the properties,
realize the assets and distribute the same in accordance with law."
1