Court approves Amalgamation Scheme under Companies Act, 1956.

The court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation involving three companies under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Scheme was approved by creditors, addressed accounting concerns, assured employee absorption, and complied with legal and tax provisions. The court found the Scheme fair and compliant, directing the companies to fulfill procedural obligations. The petitions were allowed, and the companies were instructed to adhere to filing and preservation requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation.
2. Accounting entries/adjustments as per the Scheme.
3. Absorption of employees of Transferor companies by the Transferee company.
4. Convening meetings of Secured and Unsecured Creditors.
5. Selection of the Appointed Date.
6. Compliance with Change in the Name.
7. Activities of the Transferee company being ultra vires of the Memorandum of Association.
8. Compliance with Income Tax provisions.
9. Preservation of books of accounts and records.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation:
The petitions were filed by three companies seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Scheme involves Sava Healthcare Limited and Sava Private Limited (Transferor Companies) merging with Anagha Pharma Private Limited (Transferee Company). The Scheme was approved unanimously by the meetings of the Secured and Unsecured Creditors, and no objections were raised post-publication.

2. Accounting entries/adjustments as per the Scheme:
The Regional Director raised concerns regarding accounting entries, specifically the creation of a Securities Premium Account and its treatment as Amalgamation Reserve Account. The petitioner companies clarified that the accounting treatment is in accordance with the "Purchase Method" of accounting as per Accounting Standard-14 and undertook to make necessary disclosures in case of deviations. This issue was settled by referencing precedents from various High Courts.

3. Absorption of employees of Transferor companies by the Transferee company:
The Regional Director's observation about absorbing permanent employees was addressed by stating that all employees, including those under contractual obligations, would be automatically absorbed by the Transferee company as per the Scheme. The Transferee company undertook to absorb all employees upon the Scheme's effect, negating the need to amend any clause.

4. Convening meetings of Secured and Unsecured Creditors:
The Scheme did not envisage any compromise with the Creditors of the Transferee company, and no objections were raised by the Creditors post-publication. The court referenced the judgment in Union of India Vs Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise to support the non-requirement of such meetings, thus negating the Regional Director's contention.

5. Selection of the Appointed Date:
The Appointed Date of 01st April, 2012, was chosen by the Board of Directors and approved by the shareholders of the petitioner companies. The court found no legal bar on selecting the Appointed Date, and it was deemed an administrative exigency, negating the Regional Director's observation.

6. Compliance with Change in the Name:
Clause 19 of the Scheme pertains to the Change in the Name of the Transferee company upon the Scheme's approval. The petitioner companies undertook to comply with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and rules for the Change in the Name.

7. Activities of the Transferee company being ultra vires of the Memorandum of Association:
The Regional Director's observation about the company being categorized as an NBFC due to its income sources was addressed. The Transferee company's income was predominantly from the sale of pharmaceutical products, not investment activities. The Scheme's design would replace investment income with revenue from pharmaceutical business, thus aligning with the Memorandum of Association.

8. Compliance with Income Tax provisions:
The Regional Director noted no response from the Income Tax Department, implying no objections. The petitioner companies agreed to comply with the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act and rules.

9. Preservation of books of accounts and records:
The Official Liquidator requested the Transferor Companies to preserve their books of accounts and records. The court ordered that the Transferor Companies shall not dispose of or destroy their books without prior consent from the Central Government.

Conclusion:
The court found the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation to be fair, reasonable, and compliant with legal provisions. The Scheme was sanctioned, and the petitioner companies were directed to comply with procedural requirements, including filing and preserving relevant documents. The petitions were allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---