2003 (10) TMI 409 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court to entertain the petition under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act for a foreign company with its principal place of business in Bangalore.
2. Whether a case for sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement has been made out.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court:

The primary issue was whether the Karnataka High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act for a foreign company whose principal place of business is in Bangalore. The petitioner argued that for companies registered outside India but carrying on business in India, the High Court where the principal place of business is situated has jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the petition should be filed in the High Court of Delhi, as the company is registered with the Registrar of Companies in New Delhi pursuant to section 592 of the Companies Act.

The Court examined several provisions of the Companies Act, including sections 2(11), 2(10), 10, 13, 591, 592, 597, and 600. It was noted that section 10 specifies that the High Court with jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the company is situated has jurisdiction. For foreign companies, section 600(4) deems the principal place of business in India as the registered office. Thus, the Court concluded that for foreign companies, the High Court where the principal place of business is situated has jurisdiction. Consequently, the Karnataka High Court had jurisdiction as the principal place of business of the petitioner-company in India is in Bangalore.

2. Sanctioning of the Scheme of Arrangement:

The second issue was whether a case for sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement had been made out. The petitioner-company sought approval for a Scheme of Arrangement involving the transfer of its Bangalore Branch to the Transferee Company. The scheme was approved by 99.68% of the creditors and 100% of the shareholders. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) also granted permission for the merger.

The Court observed that the proposed scheme provided for adequate capital to the Transferee Company, enhanced risk management, corporate governance, and customer service. It also ensured the continuity of employment for the staff and employees of the Bangalore Branch. The scheme was found to be in the interest of the shareholders, creditors, employees, and the public. The statutory requirements under section 391(2) were complied with, and the Bombay High Court (Panaji Bench) had already sanctioned the scheme for the Transferee Company.

Considering the approval from shareholders, creditors, and the RBI, along with the compliance with statutory requirements, the Court concluded that the scheme was fair and reasonable. Therefore, the Karnataka High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Arrangement as binding on the shareholders and creditors of the petitioner and the Transferee Company.

Order:

The company petition was allowed, and the scheme of arrangement was sanctioned. The office was directed to draw a decree in Form No. 42.