Creditor locus in scheme objections fails where the claim is disputed and absent from audited financial statements.

A person can object to a scheme of amalgamation only if it satisfies the creditor or shareholder threshold under Section 230(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, assessed by reference to the latest audited financial statements. Here, the applicant's royalty claim was disputed and was not reflected as a crystallised debt in the respondents' audited creditor lists, so it did not establish creditor status. The earlier payment arrangement and copyright-related assertions were insufficient to confer locus, and the scheme's transfer-of-liabilities clause protected any future claim. The Tribunal therefore correctly refused disclosure of the scheme documents and rejected the objection for lack of locus.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had locus to seek the scheme documents and object to the proposed amalgamation on the footing that it was a creditor of the respondent companies.

Analysis: The governing framework under Section 230(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 confines the right to object to a scheme to persons who satisfy the prescribed creditor or shareholder threshold on the basis of the latest audited financial statements. The appellant's name did not appear in the respondents' audited creditor lists, and its claim for royalty was treated as a disputed claim rather than a crystallised debt reflected in the accounts. The earlier payment arrangement and the copyright-related assertions did not establish creditor status for the purpose of objecting to the scheme. The scheme itself contained a transfer-of-liabilities clause protecting any future claim, and the material placed before the Tribunal showed that the scheme would not prejudice creditors.

Conclusion: The appellant had no locus to object to the scheme or insist upon the scheme documents on the basis of creditor status, and the refusal of relief was justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order rejecting the application for scheme documents and objections fails because the appellant was not shown to be a qualifying creditor entitled to intervene in the amalgamation process.

Ratio Decidendi: A person whose claim is disputed and who is not reflected as a creditor in the audited financial statements cannot, for the purpose of Section 230(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, object to a scheme of amalgamation or claim an entitlement to intervene as a creditor.

---