2025 (11) TMI 261 - AT - Companies Law

Appeal allowed; meetings of remaining unsecured creditors dispensed with under Sections 230(6) and 230(9) after 90% consent

In Re. : Archernar Brand Technologies Private Limited, Cephus Brand Technologies Private Limited, lmplexians Eco Solutions Private Limited, Villain Lifestyle Private Limited, Pyxis Brand Technologies Private Limited, Helea Technology Private Limited and Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited

NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT direction to convene meetings of remaining unsecured creditors. The tribunal found the NCLT's refusal to ... Contravention of statutory scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act by arbitrarily disregarding valid consent affidavits - refusal of the NCLT to grant dispensation from convening meeting of the unsecured creditors of the Transferor Companies under Section 230(9) of the Act - ordering the meeting of remaining unsecured creditors of Applicant Transferor companies, except those whose consent has already been obtained, is in violation of Section 230(6) of the Act - Appellants submitted that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional overreach and is devoid of any cogent reasoning, rendering it ex facie unsustainable - HELD THAT:- Section 230 of the Companies Act deals with matters related to power to compromise or make arrangements with creditors and Members The three important subsections here are Section 230 (1)(b); 230(6); and 230(9). It is noted from the records that the net worth of the Transferee Company as on 31-03-2024 would increase to Rs 913.37 Cr from Rs 551.29 Cr upon implementation of the Scheme. The outstanding debt of unsecured creditors on that date is approximately Rs 5.35 Cr, which is a very insignificant portion of the Net Worth - In regard to the compliance with Sections 230(9) and 230(6) of the Act, the contention of the Appellants is that the Impugned Order is non-speaking and devoid of any reasoning as no rationale has been provided by the Hon'ble NCLT for directing convening of meetings of the remaining unsecured creditors, despite its express observation that the 'necessary threshold' of consent by 90% of unsecured creditors by value is met. The only reason cited by the NCLT is that 'the highest percentage of unsecured debt is of the Transferee Company itself whose consent has been pivotal in crossing the necessary threshold.' This purported rationale is ex facie untenable and directly contrary to the express mandate of Section 230(9) of the Companies Act, which does not draw any distinction among creditors or classes of creditors for the purpose of computing the 90% threshold. It is seen from the Vodafone [2013 (4) TMI 1017 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has considered the identical matter relating to unsecured trade/sundry creditors whose dues are cyclic in nature and the Applicant companies are meeting such obligations in the ordinary course of business. In terms of the scheme also there is no variation in the rights of the unsecured creditors and there is no variation in the amounts owed to such unsecured creditors. Hon’ble Court dispensed with the requirement of convening the meeting of the secured and unsecured creditors of the Appellant companies. The present case is squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi HC in Vodafone with the additional compliance that more than 90% of the unsecured creditors have given their consent to the scheme. Where a proposed scheme of arrangement or merger does not entail any compromise or arrangement with the creditors of the company or otherwise affect their rights and liabilities, and the company possesses sufficient assets and net worth to fully discharge its liabilities, the requirement of convening a meeting of creditors ought to be dispensed with. The requirement of holding the meeting of unsecured creditors of Appellant Transferor Company is dispensed with - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to dispense with convening meetings of unsecured creditors under Section 230(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, where unsecured creditors representing at least ninety percent in value had filed consent affidavits? 2. Whether directing meetings only of the 'remaining' non-consenting unsecured creditors (excluding those who had given consent) is consistent with the statutory scheme of Section 230, in particular Section 230(6), and with the power of the Tribunal under Section 232(1) when sanctioning a scheme of merger/amalgamation? 3. Whether the proposed Composite Scheme of Arrangement, being between a parent and its subsidiaries and not affecting creditors' rights (i.e., an arrangement under Section 230(1)(b)), justifies dispensing with meetings of unsecured creditors where the transferee's post-scheme net worth and liquidity render creditors' interests unimpaired? ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Dispensation of meetings under Section 230(9) Legal framework: Section 230(9) empowers the Tribunal to dispense with calling of a meeting of a creditor or class of creditors where such creditors or class of creditors, having at least ninety percent in value, agree and confirm by affidavit to the scheme. Section 230(3)-(6) and Section 232(1) set out procedures and quorum/voting rules where meetings are held. Precedent treatment: Earlier authorities have dispensed with creditor meetings where creditors' rights are not affected and the transferee will be adequately placed to discharge liabilities; cases include decisions where wholly owned subsidiaries or intra-group restructurings resulted in dispensation of unsecured creditor meetings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal holds that Section 230(9) contains no textual basis for excluding certain creditors (including related or intra-group creditors) from the ninety percent computation. The statutory threshold is value-based and does not differentiate between identity or relationship of consenting creditors. Where affidavits represent at least ninety percent in value, the statutory precondition for dispensation is met and the Tribunal's power under Section 230(9) can be exercised to dispense with meetings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 230(9)'s ninety percent threshold must be computed without any exclusion of consenting creditors on account of identity; satisfactions of that threshold authorise dispensation. Obiter - commentary on administrative convenience and efficiency in restructuring. Conclusion: The Tribunal's refusal to dispense with meetings of unsecured creditors despite valid consents exceeding ninety percent in value was incorrect; Section 230(9) permits dispensation without excluding related creditors whose consents make up the threshold. Issue 2 - Validity of convening meetings only of remaining non-consenting creditors and compatibility with Section 230(6) Legal framework: Section 230(6) prescribes that a meeting held under Section 230 shall be decided by a majority representing three-fourths in value and that such decision binds the entire class. Section 232(1) incorporates the procedures of Section 230 for merger/amalgamation applications. Precedent treatment: Jurisprudence recognises that where the financial position post-scheme safeguards creditors, and no rights are varied, convening creditor meetings may be dispensed with; when meetings are convened, Section 230(6)'s rules must be respected as they bind the entire class. Interpretation and reasoning: Convening a meeting excluding consenting creditors undermines the structure of Section 230(6), which contemplates the entire class voting (in person, proxy, or postal ballot) and being bound by the majority in value. Exclusion of consenting creditors deprives them of their statutory right to participate and renders their prior affidavits moot. Convening a meeting only of non-consenting creditors would effectively give a veto to a small minority and frustrate the statutory mechanism that binds the class where requisite majorities are achieved. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A Tribunal cannot order meetings that exclude consenting creditors when Section 230(6) contemplates participation and binding effect of a qualified majority; ordering a meeting only of remaining non-consenting creditors is contrary to the statutory scheme. Obiter - procedural directions (advertisements, chairperson appointment, quorum rules) addressed in the impugned order are practical but become unnecessary where dispensation is appropriate. Conclusion: The NCLT's direction to convene meetings solely of the remaining unsecured creditors was inconsistent with Section 230(6) and the statutory scheme; such a course was unnecessary when consents exceeding statutory thresholds existed. Issue 3 - Applicability of dispensation where scheme is between members (Section 230(1)(b)) and creditors' rights remain unaffected Legal framework: Section 230(1)(b) concerns arrangements between a company and its members; Sections 230(3)-(6), 230(9), and Section 232(1) remain relevant when a scheme involves merger/amalgamation. The Tribunal retains discretion ('may') under Section 232(1) to order meetings as it directs. Precedent treatment: Authorities demonstrate that where a scheme relates to intra-group mergers (parent and wholly/majority owned subsidiaries), does not vary creditors' rights, and leaves the transferee with sufficient net worth and liquidity to discharge liabilities, courts/tribunals have dispensed with calling meetings of creditors. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined financials showing significant enhancement of the transferee's net worth and material reduction in unsecured debt between the application and appeal. Where the scheme does not alter the quantum or priority of creditor claims and the transferee's assets post-scheme comfortably cover liabilities, convening creditor meetings would be futile, cause delay and unnecessary expense, and conflict with Section 230(9)'s objective of procedural simplification. The Tribunal also noted that the scheme is effectively a reorganisation among related entities and does not create compromise with creditors. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a scheme under Section 230(1)(b) does not affect creditors' rights and requisite consents under Section 230(9) are in place (or transferee's post-scheme position safeguards creditors), the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to dispense with convening creditor meetings. Obiter - observations on commercial expediency and administrative burdens of unnecessary meetings. Conclusion: Dispensation of meetings of unsecured creditors was warranted given the nature of the scheme (intra-group merger), the transferee's strengthened financial position post-scheme, and the fact that consenting unsecured creditors exceeded statutory thresholds; convening meetings of remaining creditors would be infructuous and contrary to the purpose of Sections 230 and 232. Overall Conclusion and Disposition The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding merit in the contention that Section 230(9) permits dispensation where creditors representing at least ninety percent in value consent by affidavit; that convening meetings excluding consenting creditors contravenes Section 230(6); and that where a merger among related entities does not affect creditors' rights and the transferee is adequately positioned to meet liabilities, meetings of unsecured creditors may be dispensed with. Directions in the impugned order requiring convening and procedural steps for meetings of unsecured creditors were set aside and the requirement to hold such meetings was dispensed with.