Government cannot directly reject company amalgamation scheme under Section 233 without NCLT application within prescribed period

The Bombay HC quashed the Central Government's rejection of a company amalgamation scheme under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that when the government forms an opinion that a scheme is not in public interest or creditors' interest, it must file an application before NCLT within the prescribed period rather than directly rejecting it. The government cannot reject a properly filed declaration of solvency and approved scheme without following the mandatory procedure of seeking tribunal adjudication. The rejection order was deemed bad in law and set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for processing the scheme of amalgamation under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Authority of Regional Director to pass the rejection order.
3. Compliance with pre-conditions under Section 233 for merger or amalgamation.
4. Interpretation of the phrase "may" in sub-section (5) of Section 233 as mandatory.
5. Validity of the rejection order and the requirement for filing an application before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, five companies with common Directors and Shareholders, challenged the rejection of their application for processing the scheme of amalgamation under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013. The rejection was based on the ground that certain companies were not solvent as per the balance sheet, leading to the dispute over the legality of the rejection.

2. The petitioners argued that the Regional Director, who passed the rejection order, did not have the authority to do so under Section 233 of the Companies Act. They contended that if the Regional Director had concerns about the scheme, they should have filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) within a specified period, rather than rejecting the application outright.

3. The Court examined the compliance with pre-conditions for merger or amalgamation under Section 233. It noted that the pre-conditions, including approval by shareholders and creditors, declaration of solvency, and filing of the scheme with relevant authorities, were met by the petitioners. The Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures before rejecting an application.

4. The Court delved into the interpretation of the phrase "may" in sub-section (5) of Section 233, stating that it should be construed as mandatory. It explained that if the Government deems the scheme not in the public interest or creditors' interest, it must seek adjudication by the Tribunal. The Court highlighted the necessity of following the proper procedure to ensure fairness and legal compliance.

5. Ultimately, the Court found that the rejection order was invalid as the Regional Director had not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed by the law. The Court quashed the rejection order and emphasized the need for proper application to the Tribunal if there are objections to the scheme. The consequences under Section 233 of the Companies Act were to follow after setting aside the rejection order, leading to the disposal of the petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Court's reasoning in resolving the dispute over the rejection of the scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act.

---