2002 (6) TMI 451 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation and exchange ratio of shares.
2. Premium on shares.
3. Change of name of the transferee company.
4. Object clause in the memorandum of association.
5. Conversion from NBFC to an industrial company.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Valuation and Exchange Ratio of Shares:
The appellants questioned the correctness of the order rejecting the scheme of amalgamation approved unanimously by the shareholders. The scheme proposed an exchange ratio of 3 equity shares of Annamallai Finance Ltd. (transferee company) for every equity share of Shiva Texyarn Ltd. (transferor company). The valuation report by Chartered Accountants recommended this ratio, valuing shares of the transferee company at Rs. 15 and the transferor company at Rs. 45. The learned Single Judge found the premium proposal dubious, suspecting it benefited the promoters and directors disproportionately. However, the appellate court found the valuation based on materials and expert reports, adhering to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance. The exchange ratio was deemed fair and not against public interest.

2. Premium on Shares:
The scheme proposed a premium of Rs. 5 per share for the transferee company's shares. The learned Single Judge questioned the necessity and utilization of this premium. The appellants argued that the premium was an accounting necessity due to the difference between the face value and the issue price of the shares. According to Section 78 of the Companies Act, the premium must be transferred to a securities premium account and utilized only for specified purposes. The appellate court found the premium justified and compliant with Section 78, dismissing the learned Single Judge's concerns.

3. Change of Name of the Transferee Company:
The scheme included changing the transferee company's name to Shiva Texyarn Ltd. The learned Single Judge noted the need to comply with Sections 20, 21, and 23 of the Companies Act for the name change. The appellate court acknowledged this requirement but did not find it a ground to reject the scheme.

4. Object Clause in the Memorandum of Association:
The learned Single Judge pointed out that the transferee company did not have an enabling clause to carry on the business of the transferor company. The appellants provided an undertaking to shift the relevant objects to the main objects of the transferee company upon sanctioning the scheme. The appellate court accepted this undertaking, finding no impediment to the scheme's approval.

5. Conversion from NBFC to an Industrial Company:
The scheme proposed converting the transferee company from a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) to an industrial company engaged in manufacturing. The learned Single Judge expressed concerns about this conversion. The appellate court noted that the merger would enhance the transferee company's net worth and business opportunities, benefiting the shareholders. The court found the conversion prudent and aligned with the shareholders' interests.

Conclusion:
The appellate court found the learned Single Judge's reasoning flawed and not in accordance with the law. It allowed the appeals, sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. The court directed the appellant companies to file a certified copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies within 30 days and granted time extensions for holding annual general meetings and publishing audited accounts. The transferee company was directed to pay Rs. 2,500 to the Additional Central Government standing counsel. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. Nos. 6940, 6941, and 7700 of 2002 were also allowed.