Section 230: Power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and members

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 230

Section 230 is India's premier statutory mechanism for corporate debt restructuring, schemes of arrangement, mergers, and amalgamations, requiring a 75% value majority and National Company Law Tribunal sanction.

  • Core Legal Standard: Section 230 authorizes compromises or arrangements between a company and its creditors or members (or any class of them).
  • Statutory Relief & Application: The process begins with an application to the NCLT to order meetings of creditors and members.
  • Operational Mechanism: Notice of the meeting must be sent to all creditors/members accompanied by a detailed explanatory statement disclosing valuation reports, accounting effects, and director interests, and to statutory authorities (Central Government, ROC, RD, Income-tax authorities, RBI, SEBI, CCI) giving them thirty days to make representations.
  • Sub-Section (6) Provision: Under sub-section (6), the scheme must be approved by a majority representing three-fourths in value of the creditors or members (or class of them) present and voting.

Sub-section (2)(c) mandates specific disclosures for Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR), including creditor consents of not less than seventy-five percent in value, a creditor responsibility statement, and a registered valuer's report.

Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 579: The Supreme Court laid down the definitive supervisory role of the court/tribunal in sanctioning schemes: the tribunal does not sit as an appellate court over commercial wisdom; it ensures that statutory procedural requirements were fulfilled, that the classes were fairly represented, that the scheme is fair and reasonable, and that it is not violative of public interest or any statutory law.
  • Hindustan Lever Employees' Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1995) Supp (1) SCC 499: The Supreme Court held that the court will not substitute its own commercial judgment for that of the majority of shareholders/creditors unless the scheme is grossly unfair or fraudulent; the interest of workers and the public must be preserved.
  • Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 474: The Supreme Court held that the disqualifications under Section 29A of the IBC apply equally to schemes of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act; a promoter ineligible to submit a resolution plan under IBC cannot take back the company through a Section 230 scheme during liquidation.
Legal Commentary:

Section 230 is the legal architecture for mega-mergers, debt-to-equity conversions, and corporate bailouts in India. The Supreme Court's ruling in *Arun Kumar Jagatramka* harmonized Section 230 with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, preventing errant promoters from circumventing IBC Section 29A disqualifications through backdoor schemes of arrangement. Objections from the Income-tax department regarding tax avoidance (GAAR) are rigorously evaluated by the NCLT before sanction.