Court sanctions amalgamation of companies under Companies Act despite objections by Regional Director of Company Affairs.

The court granted sanction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the amalgamation of five companies, with one company as the petitioner, despite objections raised by the Regional Director of Company Affairs regarding the commercial nature of the trading companies involved. The court referenced a previous judgment overruling similar objections and emphasized the need to ensure the reasonableness of the scheme and compliance with the memorandum of association. The court sanctioned the scheme, directing the transferee company to adhere strictly to its memorandum of association, and awarded costs to the Department.

---

---

Issues:
- Sanction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for a scheme of amalgamation of five companies.
- Objection by Regional Director of Company Affairs regarding the nature of companies involved in the amalgamation.
- Contemplation of appeal against a previous order sanctioning a similar scheme of amalgamation.
- Legal considerations regarding the objects of the companies involved in the scheme.
- Application of the decision of Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. and Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., In re [1980] 50 Comp Cas 623 in the current case.
- Consideration of the reasonableness of the scheme and adherence to the memorandum of association.

Analysis:

The judgment sought sanction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the amalgamation of five companies, with one company being the petitioner. The previous order had already amalgamated four companies with a transferee company. The objection raised by the Regional Director of Company Affairs was centered around the commercial nature of the trading companies involved in the amalgamation, contrasting with the charitable nature of the transferee company. The objection suggested that the character of the transferee company might be compromised by the amalgamation, potentially violating the terms of its license under the Companies Act.

The petitioner's counsel argued that similar objections had been raised in a previous case which had been overruled by a learned single judge, and thus, the current petition should not be denied sanction based on the same grounds. The opposing counsel highlighted that certain vital aspects had not been considered in the previous judgment, including the different objects of the companies involved in the scheme. Reference was made to the decision of Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. and Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., emphasizing the need for the court to ensure the reasonableness of the scheme and its compliance with the general conditions and objectives.

The learned single judge, in the earlier case involving the amalgamation of four companies, had dismissed objections raised by the Regional Director, holding them as misconceived and unfounded. The judge emphasized that even in the absence of a provision for amalgamation in the memorandum of association, sanction could be granted if the court deemed the scheme reasonable. It was clarified that any contravention by the transferee company could be addressed under the Companies Act, including the revocation of its license if necessary. The judge ultimately sanctioned the scheme, directing the transferee company to adhere strictly to the terms of its memorandum of association.

Furthermore, the judge noted that since a similar scheme had been approved by a co-ordinate court in Bombay involving four other companies, it would not be appropriate to deny sanction in the current case solely due to the location of the petitioner company's registered office in Goa. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with costs awarded to the Department.

---