Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2003 (12) TMI 337 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court Upholds Scheme of Arrangement Benefiting Shareholders, Dismissing Objections The Court dismissed objections raised against a scheme of arrangement under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The objections, including lack of ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Court Upholds Scheme of Arrangement Benefiting Shareholders, Dismissing Objections

                            The Court dismissed objections raised against a scheme of arrangement under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The objections, including lack of valuation, primarily benefiting promoters, and coercion of minority shareholders, were found meritless. The scheme was sanctioned, enabling the transfer of investment from NPIL to Kojam at a 1:4 exchange ratio. The Court emphasized the commercial wisdom of the Board and shareholders, highlighting benefits such as focusing on core business, improving financial indicators, and unlocking shareholder value through tradable shares. Compliance with statutory formalities and majority approval were confirmed, and allegations of coercion were unsubstantiated.




                            Issues Involved:

                            1. Sanction under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.
                            2. Objections to the scheme of arrangement.
                            3. Valuation and exchange ratio of shares.
                            4. Benefits to the petitioner and its shareholders.
                            5. Commercial wisdom and decision-making.
                            6. Compliance with statutory formalities and majority approval.
                            7. Allegations of coercion of minority shareholders.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Sanction under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956:
                            The Court was asked to sanction a scheme of arrangement under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, where NPIL's investment in GGPL would be transferred to Kojam Fininvest Ltd. ("Kojam"). As consideration, Kojam would issue shares to NPIL shareholders at a ratio of 1:4.

                            2. Objections to the scheme of arrangement:
                            An objection was raised by a former employee and shareholder, representing 0.00071% of the total share capital. The objections included the lack of valuation of GGPL shares, the suggestion to sell shares in the open market, and the claim that the scheme primarily benefited the promoters.

                            3. Valuation and exchange ratio of shares:
                            The objector argued that no valuation was made for GGPL shares before determining the 4:1 exchange ratio and that GGPL shares were worth Rs. 95 each. The Court noted that this was not a scheme of amalgamation but a transfer of investment, and thus, a valuation for determining an exchange ratio was not necessary. The ratio was based on ensuring Kojam had a minimum paid-up capital of Rs. 10 crores for listing purposes.

                            4. Benefits to the petitioner and its shareholders:
                            The Court highlighted the benefits of the scheme, as outlined in Paragraph 15 of the petition. These included allowing NPIL to focus on its core pharmaceutical business, improving financial indicators such as profit before tax, debt/equity ratio, and return on capital employed, and providing shareholders with an opportunity to unlock value through tradable shares of Kojam.

                            5. Commercial wisdom and decision-making:
                            The Court emphasized that the commercial wisdom of the Board of Directors and shareholders, who overwhelmingly supported the scheme, should not be substituted by the Court's judgment. The Board's decision was based on improving NPIL's financial health by divesting from a capital-intensive subsidiary that had not declared dividends for two years.

                            6. Compliance with statutory formalities and majority approval:
                            The Court confirmed that all statutory formalities were followed, and the resolution was passed by the requisite majority. The shareholders had the relevant material to make an informed decision, and the scheme was not violative of any law or public policy.

                            7. Allegations of coercion of minority shareholders:
                            The Court found no evidence that the majority was coercing the minority shareholders. All shareholders were to receive shares in Kojam proportionate to their holdings in NPIL, and these shares would be tradable upon listing. The objector, who held a minuscule proportion of shares and did not attend the meeting to raise objections, could not substantiate claims of coercion.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Court dismissed the objections, finding no merit in them, and made the Company Petition absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The scheme of arrangement was sanctioned, allowing NPIL to transfer its investment in GGPL to Kojam, thereby enabling NPIL to focus on its core business and improve its financial standing.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found