TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor-companies with the petitioner-company deserved sanction despite objections to valuation and pending grievances, and whether the proposed alterations in authorised capital and board strength required separate rejection of the scheme.
Analysis: The equity shareholders approved the scheme by an overwhelming majority after receiving the relevant material, and the objections raised were either vague, personal, or unrelated to the legality and fairness of the amalgamation. The valuation and share exchange ratio were supported by advisers of repute, and no material was shown to establish that the ratio was illegal or unreasonable. The court applied the settled limits of jurisdiction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that it cannot sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of shareholders once statutory procedure, disclosure, majority approval, and fairness are established. The concerns relating to increase in authorised capital and number of directors were treated as matters capable of being dealt with within the scheme itself, particularly in light of the scheme clauses and the principle that sections 391 to 394 operate as a complete code for implementation of an approved amalgamation. The requirement of approval by the Reserve Bank of India and any necessary approval under section 259 of the Companies Act, 1956, were recognised as statutory conditions accompanying implementation rather than as reasons to refuse sanction.
Conclusion: The objections did not warrant refusal of sanction, and the scheme was held fit for approval.
Final Conclusion: The amalgamation scheme was approved, with the court treating the shareholders' commercial decision as binding and leaving implementation to the necessary statutory approvals.
Ratio Decidendi: In a petition for sanction of amalgamation, once the statutory procedure is followed, the requisite majority approves the scheme on informed material, and the scheme is not shown to be illegal, unfair, or opposed to public policy, the company court will not interfere with the commercial wisdom of the shareholders.
TaxTMI 
