9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation under Companies Act, 1956. 2. Opposition by Company Law Board (CLB) based on financial viability and contravention of statutory provisions. 3. Compliance with Income-tax Act, 1961 for amalgamation. 4. Alleged contravention of section 372(4) of the Companies Act. 5. Application of MRTP Act, 1969 to the amalgamation. Analysis: The judgment involves an application for the sanctioning of a scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, a solvent and prosperous company, sought to amalgamate with a sick and financially unstable transferor-company, a wholly owned subsidiary. The scheme aimed to provide financial stability to the transferor-company and reduce overhead expenses through efficient management. The equity and preference shareholders of the transferee-company unanimously approved the scheme, but the CLB opposed it on various grounds. The first objection raised by the CLB was regarding the financial viability of the transferor-company. The CLB argued that the amalgamation with a solvent company should not be allowed. However, the petitioner cited the government's policy of encouraging such mergers and the provisions of section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which support the rehabilitation of financially unsound companies through amalgamation. The court accepted this argument, holding that the objection lacked foundation and was rejected. The second objection pertained to an alleged contravention of section 372(4) of the Companies Act due to the purchase of shares exceeding 10% of the transferor-company's capital without proper approvals. The petitioner explained the acquisition process involving subsidiaries and highlighted section 372(14) exempting investments by a holding company in its subsidiary. The court agreed with the petitioner, finding no violation of section 372(4) and ruled that the section did not apply to the case. The CLB's final objection was related to the applicability of the MRTP Act, 1969, to the amalgamation. The CLB argued that the transferee-company was liable for registration under the MRTP Act, which could preclude the court from sanctioning the amalgamation. The petitioner presented correspondence indicating compliance efforts and argued that the government's silence implied satisfaction with the company's status under the MRTP Act. The court accepted this argument, concluding that the government was deemed satisfied with the company's compliance and rejected this objection as well. In conclusion, the court found the objections raised by the CLB to be without merit and allowed the application for the scheme of amalgamation, sanctioning it with effect from a specified date. The court also addressed other prayers in the petition and refused to award costs. The stay of operation of the order was denied.
|
