Bombay High Court Sanctions Scheme of Arrangement for Amalgamation of Five Transferor Companies with Unichem Laboratories Limited. Scheme held fair and reasonable under Sections 391-394 of Companies Act, 1956, despite shareholder objection.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment concerns five Company Scheme Petitions filed under Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 80, 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking sanction of a scheme of arrangement for the amalgamation of five transferor companies (AVM Capital Services Private Limited, Chevy Capital Services Private Limited, PM Capital Services Private Limited, Pranit Trading Private Limited, and Viramrut Trading Private Limited) with the transferee company, Unichem Laboratories Limited. The transferor companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of the transferee company. The scheme involved reduction of capital and issuance of shares. The court considered the reports of the Official Liquidator and the Regional Director, who had no objections subject to compliance with certain directions. One shareholder of the transferee company objected, arguing that the scheme was not in the interest of shareholders and that the valuation was unfair. The court examined the objections and found them without merit, noting that the scheme had been approved by the requisite majority of shareholders and creditors, and that the valuation was based on a fair method. The court held that the scheme was fair, reasonable, and not contrary to public interest, and accordingly sanctioned the scheme with directions regarding compliance with statutory requirements and payment of costs.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Scheme of Arrangement - Amalgamation - Sections 391-394, 80, 100-103 Companies Act, 1956 - Sanction of scheme for amalgamation of five transferor companies with transferee company - Court considered compliance with statutory requirements, reports of Official Liquidator and Regional Director, and objections of a shareholder - Held that the scheme is fair, reasonable, and not contrary to public interest, and sanctioned the scheme with directions (Paras 1-29).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the proposed scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of five transferor companies with the transferee company should be sanctioned under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement subject to compliance with directions regarding payment of costs and filing of orders.

Law Points

  • Scheme of arrangement
  • amalgamation
  • reduction of capital
  • compliance with statutory requirements
  • no objection from Regional Director and Official Liquidator
  • fair and reasonable scheme
  • not contrary to public interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 81

Company Scheme Petition No. 670 of 2011, 671 of 2011, 672 of 2011, 673 of 2011, 674 of 2011, 675 of 2011

2012-07-12

S.J. Kathawalla, J.

Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sethi i/b M/s. Hemant Sethi & Co. for Petitioner Company; Mrs. R. N. Sutar, Asst. Official Liquidator; Mr. M. S. Bharadwaj i/b Mr. T C Kaushik for Regional Director; Mr. Shailesh Mehta, Shareholder and Objector in person

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Company scheme petitions seeking sanction of a scheme of arrangement for amalgamation of five transferor companies with the transferee company.

Remedy Sought

Sanction of the scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Filing Reason

To amalgamate five wholly owned subsidiary companies with the parent company, Unichem Laboratories Limited.

Issues

Whether the scheme of arrangement is fair, reasonable, and not contrary to public interest. Whether the objections raised by a shareholder have merit.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the scheme was approved by requisite majority and complied with all statutory requirements. Objector shareholder argued that the scheme was not in the interest of shareholders and valuation was unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The scheme of arrangement was fair, reasonable, and not contrary to public interest; objections were without merit; statutory requirements were complied with.

Judgment Excerpts

By the above Company Scheme Petitions, sanction of this Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 80, 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the scheme of arrangement...

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956: Sections 391, 392, 393, 394, 80, 100, 101, 102, 103
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sanctions Scheme of Arrangement for Amalgamation of Five Transferor Companies with Unichem Laboratories Limited. Scheme held fair and reasonable under Sections 391-394 of Companies Act, 1956, despite shareholder objection.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Encroachment Suit — Remands for Fresh Consideration of Mesne Profits. Courts below erred in dismissing suit without considering evidence of encroachment and mesne profits under Section 6 of the Specific Rel...