9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the scheme of amalgamation requires the approval of the Central Government under section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 2. Whether the scheme of amalgamation falls within the exception provided in section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 3. Whether the proposed amalgamation is economically beneficial and in the interest of both companies involved. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Approval of the Central Government under section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: The petitioner-company, The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., sought the court's sanction for the amalgamation of West Bokaro Ltd. with itself under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Regional Director contended that the scheme of amalgamation required the approval of the Central Government under section 23(1) of the Monopolies Act before the court could sanction it. The petitioner-company argued that the amalgamation was covered by the exemption provided in section 23(3) of the Monopolies Act, and thus, no approval from the Central Government was required. The court had to determine if the proposed amalgamation required prior approval under section 23(1) and (2) or if it fell within the exception of section 23(3). 2. Exception under section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: The court examined whether the proposed amalgamation satisfied the conditions of section 23(3), which exempts certain inter-connected undertakings from requiring Central Government approval. The conditions are: - The undertakings must be inter-connected. - The undertakings must not be dominant. - The undertakings must produce the same goods. The court found that both the petitioner-company and the transferor-company were inter-connected undertakings, as the transferor-company was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the petitioner-company. Neither undertaking was dominant, as their combined production of coal was less than one-third of the total production in the country. Both undertakings produced the same goods, i.e., coal. Therefore, the court concluded that the proposed amalgamation fell within the exception provided in section 23(3) and did not require Central Government approval. 3. Economic Benefits and Interests of Both Companies: The court noted that the proposed amalgamation was economically beneficial and in the interest of both companies. The amalgamation would result in economic working, save expenses, and allow the petitioner-company to run the West Bokaro Colliery with its own colliery department. The petitioner-company was in good financial position, and the transferor-company was a solvent company. The members of both companies had overwhelmingly approved the scheme, and no objections were raised on its merits. The court found that the amalgamation would be advantageous to both companies, leading to economic working and saving expenses. Conclusion: The court sanctioned the proposed scheme of amalgamation, subject to the condition that similar sanction is obtained by the transferor-company from the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The petition was granted in terms of prayers (a) to (i), with the amendment to be carried out by the petitioners by the next day.
|
