Voting rights can be denied under operative regulatory orders, and a duly approved amalgamation scheme will stand absent illegality.

Operative regulatory orders and fit-and-proper criteria can lawfully extinguish a shareholder's voting rights where the relevant shares are disabled or under attachment, and exclusion from voting is justified on that basis. Challenges to quorum and meeting conduct failed because the chairperson's and scrutinizer's reports established valid proceedings, and the objections were treated as belated. A duly approved amalgamation scheme was sustained because the requisite shareholder and creditor majorities had approved it, the scheme addressed statutory net worth and compliance requirements, and no illegality or public-policy violation was shown to displace the commercial wisdom of the majority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objector could be denied voting rights at the shareholders' meeting on the basis of the regulatory order and the fit and proper criteria. (ii) Whether the objections regarding quorum and the conduct of the meeting had merit. (iii) Whether the objections to the scheme of amalgamation were sufficient to prevent sanction of the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the objector could be denied voting rights at the shareholders' meeting on the basis of the regulatory order and the fit and proper criteria.

Analysis: The regulatory order issued earlier remained operative, and the revised regulatory norms continued to apply. On the material before it, the objector and its controlling person were treated as not fit and proper, the relevant shares were under attachment or otherwise disabled, and the voting rights attached to those shares had ceased. In that situation, exclusion from voting was justified.

Conclusion: The denial of voting rights was upheld, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the objections regarding quorum and the conduct of the meeting had merit.

Analysis: The chairperson's report and the scrutinizer's report established the presence of quorum and the validity of the proceedings. The later challenge to quorum and to the authority of persons participating was not raised before the meeting authorities and was treated as an afterthought. The record did not justify disturbing the meeting process.

Conclusion: The objections as to quorum and meeting conduct were rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the objections to the scheme of amalgamation were sufficient to prevent sanction of the scheme.

Analysis: The scheme had been approved by the requisite majority of shareholders and creditors, and the regulatory materials showed that the amalgamation was intended to address statutory net worth and compliance requirements. The Tribunal was bound to respect the commercial wisdom of the majority unless the scheme was shown to be unlawful or contrary to public policy, which was not established.

Conclusion: The sanction of the amalgamation scheme was sustained and the objections failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not establish any ground to interfere with the impugned orders, and the scheme of amalgamation was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a shareholder's voting rights stand legally extinguished under operative regulatory action, the shareholder cannot block a duly approved amalgamation scheme by disputing the meeting process or substituting the court's view for the commercial wisdom of the majority.

---