TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court approves amalgamation scheme, dismisses objections on valuation, and orders scheme to proceed</h1> The court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation involving three companies, approving the issuance of shares in the transferee company to shareholders of ... Compromise and arrangement Issues Involved:1. Approval of the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Objections by the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC) regarding the scheme.3. Fairness and legality of the valuation report and swap ratio.4. Compliance with statutory requirements and public policy considerations.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation:The judgment addresses the approval of the scheme of amalgamation involving M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd. (first transferor company), M/s. STS Chemicals Ltd. (second transferor company), and M/s. Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Ltd. (transferee company). The scheme proposed the issuance of shares in the transferee company to the shareholders of the transferor companies in specific ratios determined by appointed valuers. The court noted that the meetings of equity shareholders, unsecured creditors, and secured creditors of the involved companies were convened, and the scheme was approved by the requisite majority.2. Objections by PSIDC:The PSIDC, holding 8.69% shareholding in the first transferor company, raised objections against the proposed scheme. PSIDC argued that the valuation report was biased as the valuers were appointed by the transferee company and that the scheme was detrimental to minority shareholders. PSIDC highlighted concerns about insider trading, unfair swap ratios, and the reduction of its shareholding through previous capital restructuring. The court examined these objections but found no substantial evidence to support the claims.3. Fairness and Legality of the Valuation Report and Swap Ratio:The court scrutinized the valuation report prepared by M/s. Deloitte Haskins and Sells and M/s. Khimji Kunverji and Co., which used net asset value, profit earning capacity value, and market value methods. The court referenced precedents, stating that its jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate, and it should not interfere with the commercial wisdom of the majority unless the scheme is found to be unfair or illegal. The court found that the valuation was conducted by reputable firms and that the objections raised by PSIDC did not provide any counter-valuation to challenge the report.4. Compliance with Statutory Requirements and Public Policy Considerations:The court verified that all statutory requirements under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, were complied with, including the necessary notices and reports from the Regional Director and the official liquidator. The court also addressed the objections raised by the Regional Director regarding the fairness of the valuation and the treatment of reserves. The court concluded that the scheme was not contrary to public policy and that the objections raised were either addressed or found to be without merit.Conclusion:The court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation, finding that all statutory requirements had been met and that the objections raised did not warrant interference. The order was to be notified by public notice within 30 days, and any interested person was given liberty to approach the court for necessary directions. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
