Amalgamation scheme objections on share capital, objects clause, RBI compliance, and appointed date were addressed before sanction

A scheme of amalgamation was discussed in the context of objections on authorised share capital, amendment of the transferee-company's main objects, RBI compliance, and the appointed date. The objections were treated as lacking merit, infructuous, or capable of correction, and the scheme was stated to proceed from the appointed date. On sanction, the usual statutory consequences of amalgamation followed, including transfer of assets and liabilities, continuation of pending proceedings, allotment of shares to eligible members, filing of the order with the Registrar of Companies, and dissolution of the transferor-company without winding up.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed scheme of amalgamation could be sanctioned despite objections relating to enhancement of authorized share capital, amendment of the transferee-company's main objects, compliance with Reserve Bank of India requirements, and the appointed date in the petition. (ii) What consequential directions should follow upon sanction of the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed scheme of amalgamation could be sanctioned despite objections relating to enhancement of authorized share capital, amendment of the transferee-company's main objects, compliance with Reserve Bank of India requirements, and the appointed date in the petition.

Analysis: The objection regarding inclusion of the transferor-company's authorized share capital was rejected as lacking merit. The objection concerning alteration of the transferee-company's main objects was treated as infructuous in view of the binding statement that no amendment was required, while leaving the company to follow the prescribed procedure if any future amendment became necessary. The objection based on the transferor-company being a non-banking financial company was overruled because the Reserve Bank of India circular dispensed with prior notice in such merger or amalgamation cases and required only post-sanction intimation. The discrepancy in the appointed date was held to be a typographical error and was permitted to be corrected, with the scheme proceeding on the date stated therein.

Conclusion: The objections were rejected or overruled and the scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned with effect from the appointed date.

Issue (ii): What consequential directions should follow upon sanction of the scheme.

Analysis: Once the scheme was sanctioned, the consequential incidents of amalgamation followed under section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, including transfer of assets, liabilities, pending proceedings, allotment of shares to eligible members, filing of the order with the Registrar of Companies, and dissolution of the transferor-company without winding up.

Conclusion: The transferor-company's property, liabilities, proceedings, and corporate existence were dealt with in terms of the sanctioned scheme and the statutory consequences of amalgamation.

Final Conclusion: The scheme of amalgamation was approved in full, the objections raised by the Regional Director were not accepted, and the amalgamation was given binding effect from the appointed date with the attendant statutory consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: A scheme of amalgamation may be sanctioned when the court is satisfied that statutory and procedural objections are either without merit, rendered infructuous, or cured by binding statements and compliance with the applicable legal requirements, and the scheme then operates with the consequential transfer and vesting mandated by section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

---