TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Approval of Scheme of Arrangement under Companies Act 1956</h1> <h3>In Re : Vodafone Essar Limited; Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Limited; Vodafone Essar East Limited; Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited; Vodafone Essar South Limited; Vodafone Essar Digilink Limited; Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited, and Vodafone Essar Infrastructure Limited</h3> The Court approved the Scheme of Arrangement under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act 1956, involving multiple companies and shareholders. The Court ... - Issues involved: Sanction of Court u/s 391 to 394 of Companies Act 1956 for Scheme of Arrangement involving multiple companies and shareholders.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Sanction of Court for Scheme of Arrangement The Court heard the Counsel for the parties seeking sanction u/s 391 to 394 of the Companies Act 1956 for a Scheme of Arrangement involving several companies and their respective shareholders. Separate petitions were filed by different companies before various High Courts for appropriate directions.Issue 2: Effect of Non-Receipt of Approvals Clause 5.4 of the Scheme of Arrangement outlined the consequences if the Scheme is not sanctioned by all relevant authorities. It specified that the Scheme would stand implemented without demerger in such cases, with certain provisions invalidated while the rest of the Scheme remains in force.Issue 3: Compliance and Affidavits The Petitioner confirmed compliance with all requirements as per Court directions and filed necessary affidavits. The Petitioner also undertook to fulfill all statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 1956 and related rules.Issue 4: Regional Director's Affidavit The Regional Director filed an affidavit highlighting various aspects, including foreign investment, necessary approvals, and tax considerations. The Regional Director expressed no objections to the Scheme, stating it does not appear prejudicial to shareholders or the public.Issue 5: Rejoinder by Petitioner The Petitioner submitted a rejoinder addressing the Regional Director's contentions. It clarified aspects related to share transfers, foreign exchange transactions, and compliance with regulatory authorities, emphasizing no change in shareholding or foreign exchange transactions.Issue 6: Fairness and Compliance The Court found the Scheme fair, reasonable, compliant with the law, and not against public policy. No opposition from concerned parties was noted, and all statutory compliances were fulfilled, leading to the approval of the Company Petition.Issue 7: Court Order and Clarifications The Court made the Company Petition absolute, subject to approval by the Delhi High Court for the Transferee's petition. The Order's sanction was specific to the Petitioner in Maharashtra and would not affect Orders from other High Courts involved in the sanction process.Issue 8: Costs and Dispensation The Petitioner was directed to pay costs to the Regional Director, and filing of the drawn-up order was dispensed with. All relevant authorities were instructed to act on the Order along with the Scheme and authenticated minutes from the Company Registrar, High Court (O.S.), Bombay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
