Court upholds company's amalgamation scheme; objector's claims dismissed for lack of evidence and standing.

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 due to lack of evidence, inaction, and failure to disprove the company's records. The court highlighted the objector's lack of standing to file objections, inability to prove forged documents, unsubstantiated criminal complaint, and failure to take necessary steps for share restoration. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the company, rejecting the objector's objections and allowing the amalgamation scheme to proceed.

---

---

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.

---