Case: Pioneer Dyeing House Limited Vs. Shanker Vishnu Marathe

Rs. 1,85,000 strikes us as arbitrary and unreasonable. The location of the property, its extent and its potentialities indicate that the property is capable of fetching a much higher price. (41) UNDER the earlier part of clause (i) (a) of the scheme, the managing director agrees to transfer the land under the building "pioneer House" to the company for a consideration of Rs. 47,000. It is difficult to appreciate that men of business knowing their interest would agree to such a provision. . The managing director had made a false claim to the building which belongs to the company. He agreed to sell the building to Yeshwant Mutual Insurance Company in possession and during the course of the last few years that company has recovered by way of rent an amount larger than the one which it had Life Insurance Corporation of India which has very properly taken the view it will not enforce the agreement of sale. It is contended that the amount paid by way of earnest been recovered in the shape of rent. It would be clear from these facts that the managing director has wrongly appropriated to himself the sum of Rs. 47,000. It, therefore, seems to us strange that he should be said to have transferred the land to the company for a consideration of Rs. 47,000. The company today is in possession of the building as well as the land and whatever may be the complications arising out of the dual ownership of the building and the land, the company could not be dispossessed, save through a proper action.(42) FINALLY, as we have stated earlier, the object of a scheme of reconstruction must be to enable the company to tide over a temporary difficulty and re-establish its business. This company has not only large liabilities and meagre assets but, ass ,matters stand today, it has neither a place to carry on its business nor the equipment with which to conduct it. The company owns six acres of land, three acres from out of which are to be sold under the scheme. The remaining three acres are in the possession of the Bajaj Electricals Limited and the Lunar Caustics Limited. The building on the Laxmi Road is mostly in the possession of tenants and, besides, the company will not be able to do its business in the building. That is about the place of business. As regards the machinery and equipment, the entire machinery which belonged to the company and with which it used to conduct its business has been sold by the liquidators for Rs. 1,20,000. It is from this amount that the liquidators had paid an interim dividend of 19 paise to the creditors. If the company has to start its business afresh, it will have to find a place first which in Poona is neither easy not cheap to obtain and it considerable amount would have to be expanded. (43) MR. Mistry says that the business of dyeing and printing cloth which the company used to do does not require a large capital or an expensive machinery. It is not possible to agree with this submission. The balance sheet of the company at exhibit 84 would show that in 1950. the it had stock-in-hand worth about Rs. 92,000, and in 1951, the stock-in- hand was worth about Rs. 61,000. Dyes and chemicals in the respective years were of the value of Rs. 52,000 and Rs. 40,000. As stated earlier, the company has hardly any means to pay the interest on the outstanding debts. It seems to us impossible that it will be able to raise any amount for the purchase of the equipment and the machinery needed for its business. The scheme is so unrealistic and impractical that it does not even attempt to visualise where and with what equipment the company will do its business. (44) WE will only cite one more reason why the scheme should not be sanctioned. That reason is by no means the least important. After the trial court decided Suit No. 835 of 1955, in respect of the building at Laxmi Road, the official liquidators filed a misfeasance summons on November 2,1957, against the managing director and three other directors of the company. The misfeasance summons was stayed during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the managing director in this court. The fact that the misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors of the company is not shown to have been disclosed to the shareholders and creditors of the company. While considering the scheme, it was highly relevant whether the conduct of the managing director and the other directors was such that the fate of the company could be put in their hands. If the creditors were told that a court of laws had held that the managing director was guilty of fraud as against the company and if they were further told that misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors, their decision on the approval of the scheme could have been easily otherwise.(45) IT is urged by Mr. Mistry that it was the duty of the official liquidators to disclose to the creditors and the shareholders that misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors. The questions, in our opinion, in our opinion, is not who is to blame for the non-disclosure of such an important fact, but the question is whether material facts were before the shareholders and creditors who had met to consider the scheme. We are not surprised that the sponsors of the scheme did not disclose to the meeting that misfeasance proceedings were pending, because two of the sponsors of the scheme, Gopal Ganesh Ketkar and Achyut Dattatraya Phatak, figure as delinquent directors in those proceedings. The managing director of the company against whom also misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors of the company, they would not have approved the scheme under which the affairs of the company are once again relegated into the hands of the self-same directors.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The answer to this question can, in our opinion, be found in section 153 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which governs the present proceedings. Section 153 provides by(1), in so far as is material, that where a compromise or arrangement is proposed between a company and its creditors or its members, the court may order that a meeting he held of creditors or the members of the company.(2) of section 153, which is to the point, reads thus:"if a majority in number representingin value of the creditors or class of creditors, or members of 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. "(12) IT is clear from the language of(2) that the court is not bound to accept the view of the majority.(2) says that if a certain majority agrees to the compromise or arrangement, the same shall bind the creditors, members, liquidators and contributors" if sanctioned by the court. "(2), advisedly, does not say that if a certain proportion of the creditors or members agrees to a compromise or arrangement shall bind all concerned. Therefore, though the opinion of the creditors or members of the company must be given due weight, such an opinion does not conclude the question whether the scheme must be accepted. The opinion of the majority is only one of the elements in the case, to be considered by the court which is called upon to sanction the scheme.(30) ON a review of these authorities and from the provisions in section 153 (2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, it seems to us clear that the consent of the majority of creditors or shareholders to a scheme should be sanctioned. The jurisdiction of the court which is called upon to sanction a scheme is willing to submit to the scheme. The creditors of a company may agree to accept a fraction of the amount due to them from the company and yet, on considerations of more lasting importance, like public or commercial morality, the court may refuse to accept the verdict of the majority. It may also refuse to accept the scheme on the ground that it is not reasonable or that it is not feasible or that there is no chance that it will yield to a smooth and satisfactory execution. By "reasonable" is generally meant that the arrangement can reasonably be supposed by sensible business people to be for the benefit of the class which they represent. The court will also not sanction the sanction the scheme if the facts which would have influenced the decision of the majority were not known or disclosed to the majority, or if the sponsors of the scheme have misrepresented the true position of the company. Finally, if the acceptance of the scheme would lead to the stifling of an inquiry into the conduct of the delinquent directors, the court would be slow to give its sanction to the scheme. Considerations such as those mentioned above must be taken into account by a court before a scheme is sanctioned but, in the very nature of things, it is not possible to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances which a court is entitled to take into consideration. (31) IN our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Mistry that the decision of the majority must necessarily lead to the inference that the scheme is for the benefit of that class which was represented in the statutory meeting. It is undoubtedly true that the verdict of the majority must be given due weight, because implicit in that verdict is the inference that those whose in interests are likely to be affected by the scheme are willing to submit to it. As we have, however, stated earlier, the view of the majority is but one element in the case, thought a very important one, which must be taken into account in sanctioning the scheme. The view of the majority is not decisive.(32) WE must now turn to the more important clauses of the scheme in order to show why the scheme cannot be sanctioned. A scheme of reconstruction of a show why the scheme cannot be sanctioned. A scheme of reconstruction of a company which is ordered to be wound up must postulate that on some reasonable hypothesis it is possible to revive the business of the company. The assets of this company are so meagre and its liabilities so large that it is in a state of hopeless insolvency. From that state it would, in our opinion, be impossible to resuscitate it. Mr. Mistry has submitted to us two statements as regards the position of the companyone under the scheme, and another, without the scheme. The statement prepared by Mr. Mistery as reflecting the position of the company is wholly insolvent. According to the statement submitted by Mr. Mistry, the company will have assets of the value of Rs. 6,73,000 and liabilities amounting to Rs. 7,24,500 under the scheme. It is difficult to see how the company is going to function without any running capital and without any liquid assets. We must also mention that the liabilities shown in the statements tendered before us by Mr. Mistry ignore many other liabilities which the company shall have to meet. For example, the arrears of tax have been shown in the statement at Rs. 32,000, when, in fact, the company will have to pay a much larger amount under that head. If the building on the Laxmi Road belongs to the company, and that is the decision in the suit filed by the liquidators against the managing directors, the company will have to payon the monthly rent received during the course of the last many years. The managing directors, had made an unfounded claim that the building belonged to him and the rent was not taxed in his hands, because it is said that his income was less than the minimum taxable.(37) THE first question which one might consider is from where will the company pay even the interest to the secured creditors. The interest payable to the two classes ofand the mortgagees comes to Rs. 21,670 per year. The only source of income to the company today is the rent of Rs. 2,100 per month from the three acres of plot which is in the possession of two companies called the Bajaj Electrical Limited and the Lunar Caustics Limited and the rent of Rs. 1,300 per month from the Pioneer House at Laxmi Road Poona. Excluding four months rent for taxes, repairs and outgoings, the company will receive a sum of Rs. 27,200 per year by way of rent. The best part of this amount shall have to be utilised for paying the interest on the debentures and the mortgages, with the result that the company will not be left with any capital to carry on its business. It is urged by Mr. Mistry that, under the scheme, the company would issue fresh shares for subscription by the public and the public may come forth to buy the shares. This possibility , seems therefore, that the company may be able to raise capital for its business must be excluded. Therefore, if the scheme is accepted, all that can happen is that the evil day will be postponed. We see no justification for prolonging the agonies is accepted, the company will have to face a fresh challenge to its solvency within a short time. (38) THE second reason why the scheme cannot be sanctioned is that its object appears to us to be to cover the deeds of delinquent directors. In Civil Suit No. 835 of 1955 which was filed by the official liquidators against the managing directors and another person for a declaration that the building called "pioneer House" on the Laxmi Road, Poona, is of the ownership of the company, the trial court held that the managing director had made a false claim to the building, that he had manipulated accounts to suit his convenience and that he had not acted by the Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, who also held that the managing director was guilty of fraud. The managing director had filed an appeal in this court from the judgment of the Learned Extra Assistant Judge, being Second Appeal No. 925 of 1959, but that appeal was withdrawn during the hearing of this appeal. We explained to the learned counsel appearing for the managing director that the withdrawal of the appeal will not efface the finding of fraud, but counsel stated that he was conscious of that position but had advised his client that it was not in his interest to prosecute the appeal. If the scheme is sanctioned, the winding up order will stand set aside, the liquidators will be discharge, there will be none to prosecute the misfeasance summons against the erring directors and the assets of the company will once again fall into the hands of persons whose rectitude is under a cloud. That cannot be permitted under the cloak of a scheme of reconstruction.(39) THE third reason why the scheme cannot be sanctioned is that it provides by clause (i) (a) that the personal debts of the managing director, amounting to Rs. 1,57,000, should be taken over by the company. It seems to us utterly unreasonable that the company should undertake to discharge the personal liabilities of the managing director. While justifying this provision, the scheme resorts to some mathematics and a little logic both of which are fictitious. In fact, the adoption of such a provision by the creditors shows that they gave their language of the decision in the Alabama case (1891) 1 Ch. 213. , this part of the arrangement is not such as men of business would reasonably approve. (40) WE would like to draw attention to a few other provisions of the scheme which appear to us unreasonable and impractical. Under clause (d) of the scheme, the vacant plot at Yerandavana measuring about three acres is required to be sold by private treaty for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000. We see no reason why the property should be sold privately. Public offers have never been invited for the sale at Rs. 1,85,000 strikes us as arbitrary and unreasonable. The location of the property, its extent and its potentialities indicate that the property is capable of fetching a much higher price. (41) UNDER the earlier part of clause (i) (a) of the scheme, the managing director agrees to transfer the land under the building "pioneer House" to the company for a consideration of Rs. 47,000. It is difficult to appreciate that men of business knowing their interest would agree to such a provision. . The managing director had made a false claim to the building which belongs to the company. He agreed to sell the building to Yeshwant Mutual Insurance Company in possession and during the course of the last few years that company has recovered by way of rent an amount larger than the one which it had Life Insurance Corporation of India which has very properly taken the view it will not enforce the agreement of sale. It is contended that the amount paid by way of earnest been recovered in the shape of rent. It would be clear from these facts that the managing director has wrongly appropriated to himself the sum of Rs. 47,000. It, therefore, seems to us strange that he should be said to have transferred the land to the company for a consideration of Rs. 47,000. The company today is in possession of the building as well as the land and whatever may be the complications arising out of the dual ownership of the building and the land, the company could not be dispossessed, save through a proper action.(42) FINALLY, as we have stated earlier, the object of a scheme of reconstruction must be to enable the company to tide over a temporary difficulty andits business. This company has not only large liabilities and meagre assets but, ass ,matters stand today, it has neither a place to carry on its business nor the equipment with which to conduct it. The company owns six acres of land, three acres from out of which are to be sold under the scheme. The remaining three acres are in the possession of the Bajaj Electricals Limited and the Lunar Caustics Limited. The building on the Laxmi Road is mostly in the possession of tenants and, besides, the company will not be able to do its business in the building. That is about the place of business. As regards the machinery and equipment, the entire machinery which belonged to the company and with which it used to conduct its business has been sold by the liquidators for Rs. 1,20,000. It is from this amount that the liquidators had paid an interim dividend of 19 paise to the creditors. If the company has to start its business afresh, it will have to find a place first which in Poona is neither easy not cheap to obtain and it considerable amount would have to be expanded.balance sheet of the company at exhibit 84 would show that in 1950. the it hadworth about Rs. 92,000, and in 1951, thehand was worth about Rs. 61,000. Dyes and chemicals in the respective years were of the value of Rs. 52,000 and Rs. 40,000. As stated earlier, the company has hardly any means to pay the interest on the outstanding debts. It seems to us impossible that it will be able to raise any amount for the purchase of the equipment and the machinery needed for its business. The scheme is so unrealistic and impractical that it does not even attempt to visualise where and with what equipment the company will do its business. (44) WE will only cite one more reason why the scheme should not be sanctioned. That reason is by no means the least important. After the trial court decided Suit No. 835 of 1955, in respect of the building at Laxmi Road, the official liquidators filed a misfeasance summons on November 2,1957, against the managing director and three other directors of the company. The misfeasance summons was stayed during the pendency of the second appeal filed by the managing director in this court. The fact that the misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors of the company is not shown to have been disclosed to the shareholders and creditors of the company. While considering the scheme, it was highly relevant whether the conduct of the managing director and the other directors was such that the fate of the company could be put in their hands. If the creditors were told that a court of laws had held that the managing director was guilty of fraud as against the company and if they were further told that misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors, their decision on the approval of the scheme could have been easilyquestions, in our opinion, in our opinion, is not who is to blame for theof such an important fact, but the question is whether material facts were before the shareholders and creditors who had met to consider the scheme. We are not surprised that the sponsors of the scheme did not disclose to the meeting that misfeasance proceedings were pending, because two of the sponsors of the scheme, Gopal Ganesh Ketkar and Achyut Dattatraya Phatak, figure as delinquent directors in those proceedings. The managing director of the company against whom also misfeasance proceedings were taken against the directors of the company, they would not have approved the scheme under which the affairs of the company are once again relegated into the hands of the