9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Share Exchange Ratio 2. Compliance with Section 393(1)(a) of the Companies Act 3. Validity of Proxies in the General Meeting 4. Interest of Directors in the Merger 5. Financial Impact on Shareholders 6. Disclosure of Pending Legal Proceedings Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Share Exchange Ratio: The objector contended that the proposed share exchange ratio was grossly unfair and unjust to the small shareholders of the transferor-company. The objection was based on the claim that the swap ratio was not favorable and that the objector had previously suggested an alternative which was rejected by the majority of shareholders. The court noted that the valuation report by reputed Chartered Accountants S.B. Billimoria & Co. and N.M. Raiji & Co. applied recognized valuation methods, and the majority of shareholders approved the scheme. The court emphasized that its role is supervisory and not to substitute its judgment for the commercial wisdom of the shareholders. Hence, the objection regarding the share exchange ratio was dismissed. 2. Compliance with Section 393(1)(a) of the Companies Act: The objector argued that the notice for the extraordinary general meeting did not provide all the necessary information as required under Section 393(1)(a). The court found that the transferor-company had circulated a statement under Section 393, which included relevant information and documents, and the balance sheets of both companies were available for inspection. The court concluded that the statutory requirements were met, and the objection was without merit. 3. Validity of Proxies in the General Meeting: The objector claimed that the management collected a large number of proxies, which vitiated the decision of the meeting. The court held that the law permits shareholders to attend meetings either in person or by proxy, and the high attendance indicated active participation. Therefore, the objection regarding the use of proxies was not upheld. 4. Interest of Directors in the Merger: The objector alleged that the board of directors of the transferor-company had a vested interest in the merger, which vitiated the board resolution. The court found that the board of directors included members who were not involved or interested in the merger proceedings, and general disclosures of interest were made as required by law. The court dismissed this objection as unsubstantiated. 5. Financial Impact on Shareholders: The objector argued that the merger would be unfair to the shareholders of the transferor-company, which was profitable, while the transferee-company's profits were declining. The court noted that both companies had been making profits, and the merger aimed to create a company with a larger asset base and net worth, leading to cost reduction and elimination of duplication. The court reiterated that the scheme was approved by an overwhelming majority of shareholders, reflecting their commercial wisdom. Hence, this objection was also dismissed. 6. Disclosure of Pending Legal Proceedings: The objector contended that the petitioners failed to disclose the pending prosecution proceedings against the transferee-company. The court acknowledged the pending case but noted that it was a bona fide mistake in the declaration and did not fall under Sections 235 to 251 of the Companies Act, which relate to the investigation of company affairs. The court rejected this objection, stating that the pending case did not impact the validity of the amalgamation scheme. Conclusion: The court concluded that the requisite statutory procedures were complied with, the scheme was not contrary to public policy, and it was just, fair, and reasonable from a business perspective. The scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned, and both company petitions were ordered as prayed. The transferor-company was to be dissolved without winding up upon filing the report by the Official Liquidator. The court allowed the petitioner-companies to approach for further directions if needed during the implementation of the scheme.
|
