Selective capital reduction and valuation methodology upheld for an unlisted company's minority exit process.

Selective reduction of share capital and extinguishment of identified shareholders' shares was treated as permissible under Section 66 where approved by the requisite special resolution, with creditor objection absent and Tribunal confirmation contemplated. The valuation of Rs. 196.80 per share was accepted as an independent exercise by valuers supported by a fairness opinion; the Tribunal noted it would not substitute its own view unless the valuation was unreasonable, fraudulent, or illegal, and held the ICDR Regulations, 2009 inapplicable to this unlisted-company reduction. A 25% discount for lack of marketability was upheld, no control premium was required, the Section 102 notice was found sufficient because valuation materials were available for inspection, and postal ballot with e-voting was held valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reduction of capital and selective extinguishment of the identified shareholders' shares complied with Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 and could be approved despite opposition from the minority shareholders; (ii) Whether the valuation fixed at Rs. 196.80 per share was lawful, independent and properly arrived at, including the applicability of ICDR Regulations, 2009; (iii) Whether a 25% discount for lack of marketability was justified and whether a control premium was required; (iv) Whether the explanatory statement and notice complied with Section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013 by disclosing and making available the relevant valuation documents; (v) Whether the use of postal ballot and e-voting, instead of a physical meeting, invalidated the resolution.

Issue (i): Whether the reduction of capital and selective extinguishment of the identified shareholders' shares complied with Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 and could be approved despite opposition from the minority shareholders.

Analysis: Section 66 permits reduction of share capital in any manner, including payment off of paid-up share capital in excess of the company's wants, subject to special resolution, notice to stakeholders and confirmation by the Tribunal. The majority of shareholders approved the proposal overwhelmingly, the creditors had no objection, and the regulatory requirements were complied with. The power to reduce capital is treated as a matter of corporate or domestic concern, and selective reduction is permissible if it is fair and not illegal.

Conclusion: The selective reduction of capital was lawful and the minority shareholders could be ousted by the special resolution passed by the requisite majority.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation fixed at Rs. 196.80 per share was lawful, independent and properly arrived at, including the applicability of ICDR Regulations, 2009.

Analysis: The valuation was prepared by independent valuers and supported by a fairness opinion. Valuation is a technical exercise, and the Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the valuer's judgment unless the valuation is ex facie unreasonable or infected by fraud or illegality. The preferential allotment price to SingTel arose in a different commercial setting and at a different time, and could not be treated as a controlling benchmark for the exit price in a capital reduction. The ICDR Regulations, 2009 were held inapplicable because the company was unlisted and the transaction was not a preferential allotment of listed securities.

Conclusion: The valuation at Rs. 196.80 per share was upheld, the valuer's independence was accepted, and the ICDR Regulations, 2009 were held not applicable.

Issue (iii): Whether a 25% discount for lack of marketability was justified and whether a control premium was required.

Analysis: The shares were of an unlisted company with no active trading platform after delisting, so lack of marketability was a relevant valuation adjustment. The valuer considered accepted valuation models and industry factors, and the 25% discount fell within the range discussed in the material before the Tribunal. A control premium was unnecessary because the minority shareholders were not acquiring control, and the capital reduction did not involve any change in control of the company.

Conclusion: The 25% DLOM was justified and no control premium was payable.

Issue (iv): Whether the explanatory statement and notice complied with Section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013 by disclosing and making available the relevant valuation documents.

Analysis: The notice stated that the valuation report, fairness opinion, memorandum, articles and creditors' list were available for inspection at the registered and corporate offices during specified hours. Section 102 requires material facts and, where a document is referred to, specification of the place, time and manner of inspection. There is no requirement in a reduction of capital under Section 66 that the valuation report must be annexed to the notice, and inspection was in fact afforded.

Conclusion: There was no breach of Section 102 and the notice was valid.

Issue (v): Whether the use of postal ballot and e-voting, instead of a physical meeting, invalidated the resolution.

Analysis: The Companies Act, 2013 permits transaction of business through postal ballot and electronic voting. No provision mandates a physical meeting for the kind of special business involved, and the procedure adopted enhanced participation rather than curtailed it. The absence of an in-person meeting did not render the resolution unlawful or void.

Conclusion: The postal ballot and e-voting procedure was valid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory and procedural challenges failed, the valuation and reduction process were upheld, and the sanctioned capital reduction was sustained.

---