"A Scheme, even approved by majority, can be rejected by Court but such a Scheme must be held to be unfair to the meanest intelligence." Analyse the statement citing important judicial pronouncements.

The function and duties of the court in the matter of sanctioning of schemes are well-known. Any scheme which is fair and reasonable and made in good faith will be sanctioned if it could be reasonably supported by sensible people to be for the benefit to each class of the members or creditors concerned. In order to merit rejection, a scheme must be obviously and patently unfair, unfair to the meanest intelligence. It cannot be said that no scheme can be effective to bind a dissenting shareholder unless it complies to the extent of 100 per cent with the highest possible standards of fairness, equity and reason. In the matter of Sussex Brick Co. Ltd., Re, (1960) 1 All ER 772 : (1960) 30 Com Cases 536 (Ch D) it was held that although it might be possible to find faults in a scheme that would not be sufficient ground to reject unless it is blatantly unfair or unfair to the meanest intelligence. If the court is satisfied that the scheme is fair and reasonable and in the interests of the general body of shareholders, the court will not make any provision in favour of the dissentients. The Courts have gone further to say that a scheme must be held to be unfair to the meanest intelligence before it can be rejected. It must be affirmatively proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the scheme is unfair before the scheme can be rejected by the Courts as was held in English, Scottish & Australian Chartered Bank, Re (1893) 3 Chancery 385 . Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 also makes it clear at once that the Tribunal is not merely to go by the 'ipse dixit' means unsupported statement.