In light of Judicial Pronouncements, if available, explain Arrangement as per section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Arrangement as per section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that when a compromise or arrangement (the word compromise implies the existence of some dispute, but the word arrangement is of wider application) is proposed between a company and its creditors or any class of them; or its members or any class of them, then the Tribunal may, on the application of the company, or any creditor or member, or, if the company is being wound up, the liquidator, order a meeting to be called of the creditors or class of creditors, or of the members or class of members, as the case may be to be called, to be called, held and conducted in such manner as the Tribunal directs. The compromise or scheme of arrangement will then be binding upon: all the creditors or class of creditors; the members or class of members; the company; and in the case of a company being wound up, upon the liquidator and contributories. Provided that: it is approved by 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 and voting in person or by proxy or by Postal Ballot; and it is sanctioned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may dispense with calling of a meeting of creditor or class of creditors where such creditors or class of creditors, having at least ninety per cent. value, agree and confirm, by way of affidavit, to the scheme of compromise or arrangement. In Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd and Anr, Supreme Court (2021) , the court found that the prohibition placed by the Parliament in Section 29A and Section 35(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must also attach itself to a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, when the company is undergoing liquidation under the auspices of the IBC. As such, Regulation 2B of the Liquidation Process Regulations, specifically the proviso to Regulation 2B(1), is also constitutionally valid.