MIHIRENDRA KISHORE DUTT Vs. BRAHMANBARIA LOAN CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order made by Ameer Ali, J., on 22 August, 1933. By that order he gave sanction to a scheme of arrangement put forward by the Brahmanbaria Loan Co., Ltd. which scheme of arrangement had been arrived at between the company and a body of creditors of that company at a meeting held on 25 June 1933, which had been convened under an order of this Court, made on 9 May 1933 under the provisions of Sub-section (1) Section 153, Companies Act. That sub-section provides: Where a compromise or arrangement is proposed between a company and its creditors or any class of them, or between the company and its members or any class of them, the Court may on the application in a summary way, of the company or of any creditor or member of the company or, in the case of a company being wound up, of the liquidator, order a meeting of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members of the company or class of members, as the case may be, to be called, held and conducted in such a manner as the Court directs.

(2.) The section then proceeds to provide in Sub-section (2): If a majority in number representing three fourths in value of the creditors or class of creditors, or members, or class of members, as the case may be, present either in person or by proxy at the meeting agree to any compromise or arrangement, the compromise or arrangement shall, if sanctioned by the Court, be binding on all the creditors or the class of creditors, or on all the members or class of members, as the case may be, and also on the company, or in the case of a company in the course of being wound up, on the liquidator and contributories of the company.

(3.) In the present instance the company with which we are concerned, are not in the course of being wound up and consequently there is no liquidator. It appears from the petition on which the present proceedings were founded, that the company became very much involved financially and it was obviously desirable that some arrangement should be arrived at between the company and a very considerable number of its creditors. The petition is dated 5 July 1933 and it sets out in effect the history of the company and certain of its operations, and indicates how it came about that there was necessity for an arrangement between the company and its creditors. The scheme as passed in the meeting of 25 June 1933, was not exactly the scheme which had originally been proposed. Certain alterations were made and it was the scheme as ultimately settled, which came before the Court for sanction. The scheme was opposed by certain creditors including the present appellant Mihirendra Kishore Dutt and certain of his relatives.