Case: Sesa Industries Ltd Vs. Krishna H. Bajaj

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for the adjudication of these appeals may be stated thus:SGL was incorporated on 25th June, 1965 as a private limited company, and thereafter, on 16th April, 1991 became a public company. The appellant company viz. Sesa Industries Ltd. (for short "SIL") was incorporated on 17th May, 1993 as a subsidiary of SGL with the latter holding 88.85% of the shares in the former.On 26th July, 2005, a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of SIL to amalgamate SIL with SGL, effective from 1st April, 2005. In pursuance thereof, on 12th January, 2006, SIL and SGL filed respective company applications in the Bombay High Court seeking the Courts permission to convene a general body meeting.Respondent No. 1 herein, holder of 0.29% of the shares in SIL, filed an affidavit on 18th January, 2006 intervening in the afore-mentioned company petitions. Subsequently, on 6th March, 2006, respondent No. 1 also filed a letter dated 17th February, 2006 issued by the Director of Inspection and Investigation, Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, respondent No.3 herein, addressed to the Regional Director, respondent No.2 in these appeals, together with a copy of the inspection report under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). At this juncture, it would be useful to extract relevant portion of the said report, which reads aswill be apparent from the various findings of the Inspection Report that the entire control of the day to day working of the company is being managed by Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Japan whereby huge turnover and profits are being siphoned away through systematic under invoicing of international financial transactions and over invoicing of import of coal. As regards inter-se transactions between SGL & SIL, systematic efforts have been made by SGL to put SIL into weal financial position by siphoning of the funds from SIL to SGL by over invoicing the price of iron ore and coke. In the process the minority shareholders of SIL have been deprived of their reasonable return in the forms of dividend or gains out of fair price of its shares. The minority shareholders of (sic) SIL have been cheated through the systematically siphoning the funds by SGL to the ultimate holding company i.e. M/s Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Japan. The I.O. has suggested for redressal of grievances of SIL by SGL in rescinding (sic.) the contract of purchase of shares at under value price of Rs. 30/- per share.Ignoring the objections raised by respondent No.1, vide order dated 18th March, 2006, the High Court, allowed SIL and SGL to convene meetings for seeking approval of shareholders for the said amalgamation, and directed the companies to disclose, as part of the Explanatory Statement to be sent with individual notices, the following observations from the inspectionCentral Government has issued a letter dated 17th February, 2006 to various governmental agencies including the Regional Director (Western Region) enclosing a copy of the inspection report and recording that during the course of the inspection the inspecting officer has pointed out contraventions of Section 269 read with Section 198/309, contravention of Section 289 read with Article no. 111 and 140 of the Articles, contravention of Section 260 and 313, contravention of Section 268 read with Section 256 and contravention of Section 628 of the Act. The Investigating Officer has suggested invoking the provisions of Section 397 and 398 read with Section 388B, 401, 402 and 406 of the Act including that of Section 542 of the Act. The Inspection report has also pointed out financial irregularities and also examined the complaints of Mrs. Kalpana Bhandari and Mrs. Krishna H. Bajaj which have been reported in Part "A" of the Inspection Report. Contravention of Section 297 of the Act has been reported in Part "B" of the Inspection Report. It has also been suggested Part "D" of the Inspection Report for references to be made to the Ministry of Finance and SEBI. Accordingly, the Central Government has requested the addressees to examine the report and take appropriate action.Thereafter, on 8th May, 2006, the shareholders of SIL and SGL, by 99% majority, approved the scheme of amalgamation, and respondent No.1 was the sole shareholder who objected to the said scheme. SIL and SGL both filed petitions in the High Court for according approval to the amalgamation scheme.On 10th August, 2006, the Registrar of Companies, Goa filed an affidavit as the delegate of the Regional Director stating that SIL and SGL were inspected under Section 209A of the Act by the Inspecting Officers of the Ministry of Company Affairs during the year 2005 and "any violation which may be noticed during the course of inspection, there will be no dilution for initiating legal action under the Act and that will not in any way affect the amalgamation". The Registrar stated save and except the observations in para 4 of the affidavit, which included forwarding of two complaints received from respondent No.1, he had no objection to the scheme of amalgamation.On the same day, Official Liquidator, respondent No.1 in these appeals, also filed a report in the High Court, inter alia, stating that in light of the Auditors report dated 2nd August 2006, according to him the affairs of the transferor company have not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members or the public. Respondent No.1 filed an affidavit objecting to the sanctioning of the scheme.On 24th August, 2006 respondent No. 1 filed Application No. 56 of 2006 praying for production and/or inspection of some documents, including joint valuation report submitted by M/s. N.M. Raiji and M/s. Hairbhakti & Co.; the aforementioned Inspection Report relating to SGL and SIL, and issuance of notice to the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange; the Ministry of Company Affairs and the Central Government. On 9th February, 2009, while partly allowing the said application the Company Court directed SGL and SIL to place on record the joint valuation reports, the proxy register alongwith relevant proxies held on 8th May, 2006. However, as regards other prayers, the application was dismissed. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. Vide order dated 25th April, 2007, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1, observinghave gone through the two reports. We are of the opinion that the learned Company Judge should take into consideration the said reports before passing any final orders in the matter of approving the scheme of amalgamation of the two companies for considering the purpose of it relevancy, in order to grant approval.Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed yet another Company Application No. 24 of 2007, praying that the reports dated 17th February, 2006 and 20th March, 2006 sent to the Regional Director by the Ministry of Company Affairs be furnished to her. Vide order dated 13th July, 2007, the Single Judge allowed the application. Being aggrieved, SIL preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. Admitting the appeal, vide order dated 23rd August, 2007, the Division Bench granted interim stay of the order dated 13th July, 2007. The orderof the impugned order, however, nowhere discloses consideration of the said aspect of the relevancy of the document for the purpose of deciding the issue relating to amalgamation of the company. We, however, make it clear that the process regarding amalgamation shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of law and in terms of direction in order dated 25.4.07 regarding relevancy of the said report.Finally, vide judgment dated 18th December, 2008, the learned Company Judge sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation between SGL and SIL, inter alia, observingsince inspection proceedings under Section 209A of the Act are different from an investigation carried out in terms of Section 235 of the Act, they are not required to be disclosed under the proviso to Section 391 of the Act;(ii) in any event, SIL and SGL have not suppressed any material facts as the letter dated 17th February, 2006 was made part of the individual notices sent to the shareholders;(iii) inspections carried out under Section 209A of the Act cannot come in the way of sanctioning of amalgamation, as they can only result in criminal prosecution of those responsible for contravention of various Sections of the Act;(iv) three years have elapsed since the inspections but the Central Government has not taken any further actions in terms of the inspection reports, which shows that investigations or action in terms of Section 401 of the Act was not in the offing;(v) the Central Government has, through the Regional Director, clarified that the merger would not come in the way of any action to be taken pursuant to the two inspection reports,(vi) non-disclosure of pending criminal complaints is also not fatal to sanctioning of the scheme as the Objector did not raise this contention earlier; pendency of criminal complaints cannot be equated to "material facts" in terms of the proviso to Section 391 of the Act and the merger will have no effect on the criminal complaints;(vii) merely because the Registrar has failed to perform his duties, it cannot be said that the scheme of amalgamation, which has been approved by a majority of the shareholders, should be rejected;(viii) the onus is on the Objector to prove that a scheme is contrary to public interest and is not just, fair and reasonable, and in the instant case, the Objector has not discharged the burden cast on her;(ix) the objection in relation to the share valuation was not well-founded in as much as the Objector has not placed any material to show that the valuation was unfair, especially when an overwhelming majority of shareholders have approved the share valuation;(x) violation of Section 73 of the Act is not sufficient to stall an amalgamation as the persons responsible for the violation can be effectively dealt with even after the merger and (xi) the objection that the proposed scheme is unconscionable deserves to be rejected, as the scheme has been approved by majority of the shareholders, as also the Central Government. The learned Judge also clarified that the sanctioning of the scheme will not come in the way of either civil or criminal proceedings which may be initiated pursuant to the inspection reports as well as further progress of criminal complaints filed by the objector.Aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench of the Court. The Division Bench has, vide the impugned judgment, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and revoked the sanction to the amalgamation scheme. The division bench has, inter-alia, observedwhen serious irregularities have been found in the inspection report and when the proceedings on the basis of the said inspection report are still pending and no further decision has been taken in this behalf and the Registrar as a delegate of the Regional Director who was in possession of such inspection report, should not have filed affidavits both, as the Official Liquidator as well as the Registrar as the delegate of the Regional Director;(ii) once it is found that the report/affidavit on behalf of the Registrar/Regional Director is not in conformity with the statutory provisions, this Court mechanically cannot sanction the scheme simply because the majority of the shareholders have approved the scheme and the majority shareholders in their wisdom have accepted the valuation regarding exchange ratio;(iii) as per the provisions of Section 393, the Registrar as well as the Liquidator, both are required to submit their separate reports and both are, therefore, functioning in a different capacity. It is surprising as to how the Official Liquidator who was the incharge of the Registrar could have filed the affidavits one in the capacity as a delegate of the Regional Director and the other in the capacity as the Official Liquidator;(iv) the Affidavit of the Registrar is absolutely noncommittal. In the affidavit of the Official Liquidator, he has mentioned that the affairs of the company are not being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members or to public interest. But when the same person filed affidavit as Registrar, this aspect is clearly omitted in his reply and(v) the learned Company Judge himself has found that from the stand taken by the Registrar, he has failed in his duty and it cannot be said that the requirement of Section 394 has been complied with. In fact, two contradictory affidavits have been filed by the same gentleman, one in his capacity as the delegate of the Regional Director and the other in his capacity as the Official Liquidator. When the law requires that there should be two independent reports, it is clear that the statutory provision has not been complied with.Hence these appeals by SIL.

Reasoning: Thus, the first question is as to whether the appellant and SGL had disclosed sufficient information to the shareholders so as to enable them to arrive at an informed decision?The proviso to Section 391 (2) requires a company to "disclose pendency of any investigation in relation to the company under Sections 235 to 351, and the like". Though it is true that inspection under Section 209A of the Act, strictly speaking, may not be in the nature of an investigation, but at the same time it cannot be construed as an innocuous exercise for record, in as much as if anything objectionable or fraudulent in the conduct of the affairs of the company is detected during the course of inspection, it may lay the foundation for the purpose of investigations under Sections 235 and 237 of the Act, as is the case here. Therefore, existence of proceedings under Section 209A must be disclosed in terms of the proviso to Section 391(2). In any event, we are of the opinion that since the said issue is a question of fact, based on appreciation of evidence, and both the Courts below have held that the information supplied was sufficient, particularly in light of the order passed by the Single Judge on 18th March, 2006, we are not inclined to disturb the said concurrent finding of the Courts below, particularly when it is not shown that the said finding suffers from any demonstrable perversity. (See: Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar Vs. Mahabir Prasad & Ors. (1951 SCR 277 ) and Ganga Bishnu Swaika Vs. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society (AIR 1968 SC 615 .)e next issue that arises for our determination is whether the Division Bench was correct in holding that the affidavit filed by the Official Liquidator was vitiated on account of non-disclosure of all material facts.From a bare perusal of the affidavit dated 10th February, 2006, it is manifest, ex facie, that before filing the affidavit, the said official had not examined and applied its mind to the findings contained in the inspection report under Section 209A of the Act. While it is true that it was not within the domain of the Official Liquidator to determine the relvency or otherwise of the said report, yet he was obliged to incorporate in his affidavit the contents of the inspection report. We are convinced that the official liquidator had failed to discharge the statutory burden placed on him under the second proviso to Section 394(1) of the Act.An Official Liquidator acts as a watchdog of the Company Court, reposed with the duty of satisfying the Court that the affairs of the company, being dissolved, have not been carried out in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members and the interest of the public at large. In essence, the Official Liquidator assists the Court in appreciating the other side of the picture before it, and it is only upon consideration of the amalgamation scheme, together with the report of the Official Liquidator, that the Court can arrive at a final conclusion that the scheme is in keeping with the mandate of the Act and that of public interest in general. It, therefore, follows that for examining the questions as to why the transferor-company came into existence; for what purpose it was set up; who were its promoters; who were controlling it; what object was sought to be achieved by dissolving it and merging with another company, by way of a scheme of amalgamation, the report of an official liquidator is of seminal importance and in fact facilitates the Company Judge to record its satisfaction as to whether or not the affairs of the transferor company had been carried on in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the minority and to the public interest.In the present case, we are unable to appreciate why the Official Liquidator, who was aware of the inspection report dated 17th February, 2006 under Section 209A containing adverse comments on the affairs of both the companies, relied only on the report of the auditors, which admittedly was not even verified. We can only lament the conduct of the official liquidator.Having held that the Official Liquidator had failed to discharge the duty cast on him in terms of the second proviso to Section 394(1) of the Act, the next issue that requires consideration is whether sanction of a scheme of amalgamation can be held up merely because the conduct of an Official Liquidator is found to be blameworthy? We are of the view that it will neither be proper nor feasible to lay down absolute parameters in this behalf. The effect of misdemeanour on the part of the official liquidator on the scheme as such would depend on the facts obtaining in each case and ordinarily the Company Judge should be the final arbiter on that issue. In the instant case, indubitably, the findings in the report under Section 209A of the Act were placed before the Company Judge, and he had considered the same while sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Company Judge had, before him, all material facts which had a direct bearing on the sanction of the amalgamation scheme, despite the aforestated lapse on the part of the Official Liquidator. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Company Judge, having examined all material facts, was justified in sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation, particularly when the current investigation under Section 235 of the Act was initiated pursuant to a complaint filed by respondent No.1 subsequent to the order of the Company Judge sanctioning the scheme.