9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Consideration of proposed resolutions at an extraordinary general meeting. 2. Jurisdiction of the court to prevent shareholders from discussing modifications to a scheme pending court sanction. Analysis: 1. The judgment involved a dispute regarding the holding of an extraordinary general meeting to consider proposed resolutions related to a scheme of amalgamation. The court initially granted an injunction against the company from considering all proposed resolutions. However, during the appeal hearing, the appellants did not press for the injunction related to two resolutions, which were to examine alternative schemes and withdraw the pending petition. Consequently, the court confirmed the injunction only for the resolution to renegotiate with another company. The court emphasized that the shareholders' discussion on modifying the existing scheme did not impede the court's power to sanction the scheme with or without modifications. 2. The judgment delved into the jurisdiction of the court concerning shareholders' rights to discuss modifications to a scheme pending court approval. The court highlighted the provisions of Sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, along with Rule 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which govern the sanctioning of schemes of arrangement or compromise. It was noted that the court holds the authority to sanction schemes and make necessary modifications for the proper functioning of the arrangement. The judgment clarified that a shareholders' meeting to discuss modifications to a pending scheme does not infringe upon the court's powers to approve the scheme. The court concluded that shareholders could discuss and approve modifications at a properly requisitioned meeting without impeding the court's jurisdiction. 3. Ultimately, the court determined that since the company agreed to limit the extraordinary general meeting's agenda to renegotiating with another company, which was a properly requisitioned meeting, the court had no justification to prevent such discussions. The judgment highlighted that restricting the meeting to discussing a specific resolution did not violate any provisions of the Companies Act or related rules. Additionally, the court did not find it necessary to address the argument regarding the jurisdiction or power of the company court in dealing with the shareholders' proposed modifications. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the shareholders' rights to discuss modifications to a scheme pending court approval and emphasized that such discussions do not hinder the court's authority to sanction the scheme. The court upheld the shareholders' ability to propose and approve modifications at a requisitioned meeting, as long as the discussions were limited to specific resolutions and did not interfere with the court's jurisdiction.
|
