2001 (4) TMI 860 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of application opposing the Scheme of Demerger.
2. Allegation of uninformed consent of shareholders.
3. Allegation of disparate interests among shareholders.
4. Validity of the share exchange ratio.
5. Inclusion of clause 5.8 in the scheme.
6. Modification of the scheme by the Company Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Application Opposing the Scheme of Demerger:
The appeal was directed against the order of the Company Judge rejecting the application opposing the Scheme of Demerger under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Scheme involved the demerger of the Pharmaceutical Division from Duphar Interfran Ltd. (DIL) to Duphar Pharma India Ltd. (DPIL), with the issuance of shares to DIL shareholders in DPIL.

2. Allegation of Uninformed Consent of Shareholders:
The appellant contended that the shareholders' consent was uninformed as they were not provided with the basis for the share exchange ratio determined by Arthur Andersen & Associates. However, the court found no merit in this contention. The report by Arthur Andersen & Associates detailed the procedures and considerations for determining the share ratio, including future equity servicing capacity, avoiding fractional entitlements, satisfying listing guidelines, and the current equity share capital of DIL. The court held that the shareholders had sufficient information to make an informed decision, and their overwhelming approval indicated informed consent.

3. Allegation of Disparate Interests Among Shareholders:
The appellant argued that the meeting of shareholders lumped together different classes with disparate interests, particularly due to the promoter group and foreign collaborator holding majority shares. The court found this contention without merit, noting that the brand names "Vertin" and "Colospa" were not properties of DIL but of Vasant Kumar and family. The inter se transfer of shares post-scheme was not objectionable as it did not affect the scheme's approval or implementation.

4. Validity of the Share Exchange Ratio:
The appellant criticized the share exchange ratio, claiming it lacked a basis and was merely a repetition of the respondent-company's desires. The court disagreed, stating that the financial experts had a clear picture of the profit potential and financial performance of the Pharma Division. The share ratio of 1:2 was deemed appropriate, and the shareholders' overwhelming approval further validated it. The court emphasized that it is not for the court to sit in appeal over the commercial judgment of the shareholders.

5. Inclusion of Clause 5.8 in the Scheme:
The appellant contended that clause 5.8, which involved inter se exchange of shares between Vasant Kumar and family and Solvay BV, was designed to benefit a small group of shareholders and evade stamp duty. The court found that the clause was included to avoid allegations of suppression and was not necessary for the scheme's approval. The transfer of brand names post-scheme was acceptable as they did not belong to DIL.

6. Modification of the Scheme by the Company Court:
The appellant argued that deleting clauses 5.8, 5.9, and 9.7 from the scheme required resubmission for shareholders' approval. The court held that the Company Court has the jurisdiction to approve the scheme with modifications that do not alter its essence. The deletion of these clauses did not affect the scheme's validity or require reconsideration by the shareholders. The court cited its supervisory role under section 392 to make modifications for the proper working of the scheme.

Conclusion:
The court found no substance in the objections raised by the appellant. The scheme was overwhelmingly approved by the shareholders, and the modifications made by the Company Court did not necessitate resubmission for approval. The appeal was dismissed, and the objections were deemed without merit. The court emphasized the broad parameters of its jurisdiction in sanctioning schemes under section 394, focusing on statutory compliance, informed consent, and the overall fairness and reasonableness of the scheme.