TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds company's amalgamation scheme; objector's claims dismissed for lack of evidence and standing.</h1> <h3>Vayaz Indian Pesticides (P.) Ltd., In re</h3> The court upheld the petitioner's objections in a case concerning the approval of a company's amalgamation scheme. The objector's claims were dismissed ... Amalgamation Issues:1. Locus standi of objector to file objections to scheme of amalgamation.2. Validity of share transfers by the objector.3. Allegations of forged documents and criminal complaint.4. Failure to take steps for restoration of shares.Issue 1: Locus standi of objector to file objections:The petitioner, a company seeking approval for amalgamation, raised a preliminary objection to the objections filed by the objector, claiming the objector lacked locus standi due to transferring all shares. The petitioner provided evidence of share transfers and corresponding entries in income tax returns and company records. The objector, however, asserted ownership of 50% shares and directorship, presenting a letter about undelivered share certificates. The court noted the absence of evidence supporting the objector's claim and highlighted the objector's failure to deny involvement in company management. Ultimately, the court upheld the petitioner's objection, rejecting the objector's claims.Issue 2: Validity of share transfers:The objector alleged the share transfer documents were forged and filed a criminal complaint. However, the court found the objector unable to explain the entries in his account reflecting share sale proceeds and income tax returns. The petitioner argued that the objector's failure to receive dividends or protest non-payment post-transfer indicated the validity of share transfers. The court emphasized the objector's lack of action before filing the criminal complaint and the absence of evidence disproving the company's records, leading to the rejection of the objector's claims.Issue 3: Allegations of forged documents and criminal complaint:The objector claimed the share transfer documents were forged and filed a criminal complaint in 1997. However, the court found the objector's arguments unsubstantiated, emphasizing the lack of evidence disproving the company's records or supporting the allegations of forgery. The court highlighted the objector's failure to take steps for share restoration as provided under the Companies Act, indicating the weakness of the objector's position.Issue 4: Failure to take steps for restoration of shares:Despite alleging illegal share transfers and forged documents, the objector failed to take steps for share restoration or correction of company records. The court noted the objector's reliance on a criminal complaint as insufficient action, emphasizing the legal remedies available under the Companies Act for such situations. The court concluded that the objector's inaction supported the company's position, leading to the rejection of the objector's objections.Overall, the court upheld the petitioner's objections, ruling in favor of the company's amalgamation scheme approval and dismissing the objections raised by the objector based on the lack of evidence, inaction, and failure to disprove the company's records.
TaxTMI 
