9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Sanction of Scheme of Arrangement under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 between two companies, objection by Regional Director regarding payment of stamp duty and registration fees, compliance with necessary formalities, fairness and reasonableness of the Scheme, commercial wisdom of the companies, approval by shareholders and creditors, costs to be paid. Analysis: The High Court of Bombay was presented with a Company Petition seeking the sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement between two companies under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner, a bank, and the transferor company had completed all required formalities, including meetings with shareholders and creditors, to approve the Scheme. The Regional Director raised an objection related to the payment of stamp duty and registration fees by the transferee company, which was addressed by the petitioner through an affidavit agreeing to pay the necessary fees. The Regional Director's objection was based on potential revenue loss to the government. However, after considering the response from the petitioner, the court found no reason not to sanction the Scheme. The court noted that no objections were raised by any party during the proceedings, and all necessary documents and statutory compliances were in order. The Scheme was deemed fair, sound, and reasonable, supported by expert opinions and the majority decision of concerned parties, including shareholders and creditors. The court emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the companies should not be interfered with unless against public policy or public interest. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted that a similar Scheme had been sanctioned by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Consequently, the court granted the Scheme as prayed for in the petition. In conclusion, the court sanctioned the Scheme of Arrangement as per the prayer clauses, with costs imposed on the petitioner to be paid to the Regional Director and the Official Liquidator within a specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal requirements, fairness, and the majority decision of stakeholders in approving such Schemes.
|
