Tribunal Upholds Share Capital Reduction, Emphasizes Fair Compensation for Shareholders

Piyush Dilipbhai Shah, Sejal Ashish Jhaveri, Samir Kirtikumar Hemani, Amish Narendra Shah, Rupesh Navanitlal Jhaveri Versus Syngenta India Limited

Piyush Dilipbhai Shah, Sejal Ashish Jhaveri, Samir Kirtikumar Hemani, Amish Narendra Shah, Rupesh Navanitlal Jhaveri Versus Syngenta India Limited - TMI Issues Involved
1. Legitimacy of the reduction of share capital.
2. Adequacy of compensation to minority shareholders.
3. Methodology of share valuation.
4. Taxation implications, specifically Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT).

Detailed Analysis

Legitimacy of the Reduction of Share Capital:

The Respondent-Company sought to reduce its equity share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, by extinguishing all non-promoter shareholders. The Appellants argued that the reduction was unjustified as the company is financially sound and making profits. The Respondent-Company countered that Section 66 does not discriminate against any class of shareholders and allows reduction in any manner, including selective reduction. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, stating that selective reduction is permissible and does not discriminate against any class of shareholders.

Adequacy of Compensation to Minority Shareholders:

The Appellants contended that the valuation used to compensate minority shareholders was outdated (from 2017) and did not reflect the company's current financial status. The Tribunal noted that the valuation reports were indeed three years old and that the company had made substantial profits since then. It emphasized that public shareholders are entitled to a fair price for their shares, which should reflect the company's current financial performance. The Tribunal directed the company to revalue the shares based on the latest audited accounts and pay the higher value arrived at by independent valuers.

Methodology of Share Valuation:

The Appellants questioned the methodology used by the valuers, arguing that the valuation did not consider the company's growth over the past three years. The Respondent-Company had engaged two independent valuers, M/s Price Waterhouse & Co. LLP and Haribhakti & Co. LLP, who provided their valuation reports in 2017. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits or demerits of the valuation methodology but focused on ensuring that the valuation reflects the company's current financial status. It directed the company to appoint independent valuers to revalue the shares based on the latest financial statements.

Taxation Implications (DDT):

The Appellants argued that the company should bear the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) as stated in the explanatory statement of the EOGM notice. However, the Tribunal noted that the DDT was abolished by the Finance Act, 2020, and the obligation to pay DDT now falls on individual shareholders. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's stance that the change in law could not be challenged in this forum and upheld the company's position on DDT.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the Respondent-Company to revalue the shares by independent valuers based on the latest audited accounts and pay the higher value determined. It upheld the reduction of share capital but emphasized the need for fair compensation to minority shareholders. The Tribunal did not interfere with the DDT provision as amended by the Finance Act, 2020. The appeal was allowed in these terms, ensuring that the public shareholders receive a fair price reflecting the company's current financial status.