Amalgamation under Companies Act upheld for a special-statute body corporate; separate transferee petition not required on these facts.

A body corporate constituted under a special statute can fall within the Companies Act, 1956 framework for amalgamation, because "body corporate" is wider than "company" and section 394(4)(b) includes a body corporate as a transferor company. On the facts, the transferee bank was treated as a company for this purpose, and the scheme of amalgamation was permissible under sections 391 to 394. A separate petition by the transferee was not required where it was the 100% holding company, the shareholder base was effectively the same, no fresh shares or capital reorganisation was involved, and creditors were not prejudiced. The amalgamation scheme was approved and the transferor company was directed to be dissolved without winding up.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between a transferor company and a transferee body corporate constituted under a special statute is permissible under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) Whether the transferee company was required to file a separate petition under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between a transferor company and a transferee body corporate constituted under a special statute is permissible under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The expression "body corporate" in section 2(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 is wider than "company", and section 394(4)(b) expressly includes a body corporate within the meaning of "transferor company". Read with section 4 of the Companies Act, 1956, a company holding more than half the equity share capital of another is its holding company, and the wholly owned subsidiary in the present case fell within that relationship. The transferee bank, though constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, was treated as a company for the purpose of the Act, and the scheme was also supported by the statutory approvals and unanimous stakeholder consent.

Conclusion: The scheme of amalgamation was held to be permissible under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the transferee company was required to file a separate petition under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The requirement of a separate petition was examined in light of the facts that the transferee was the 100% holding company, the shareholders of the transferor company were effectively the same persons, the scheme did not involve issue of fresh shares or reorganisation of the transferee's capital, and the creditors' interests were not prejudiced. On those facts, the earlier objection-based reasoning in other cases was distinguished, and the court held that the absence of a separate petition by the transferee did not invalidate the request for sanction.

Conclusion: A separate petition by the transferee company was not required on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The court approved the amalgamation scheme, upheld the inclusion of the transferee bank within the statutory framework for amalgamation, and directed dissolution of the transferor company without winding up.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Companies Act, 1956, a body corporate that is a holding company may be treated as a company for amalgamation purposes, and a separate petition by the transferee is unnecessary where the scheme involves a wholly owned subsidiary, causes no prejudice to creditors or shareholders, and does not alter the transferee's capital structure.

---