Case: Shailesh H. Bajaj Vs. Sesa Goa Limited &amp; Another

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under:The Board of Directors of SGL and of Ekaterina (a company based in Mauritius), in their respective meetings held on 25/02/2012 approved the concurrent scheme including the share exchange ratio. On the same date the Board of Directors of SGL and of SIIL, MALCO, SEL and VAL, in their respective meetings approved the composite scheme and the share exchange ratio. The approval of both the schemes was after considering the joint valuation report of M/s. Grant Thornton India, LLP and KPMG India Private Limited, independent valuers and the Fairness Opinion Report of Citigroup Global Markets India Private Limited (given to the Board of Directors of SGL) and DSP Merrill Lynch Private Limited (given to the Board of Directors of SIIL) on 02/04/2012 and 12/04/2012, respectively. The National Stock Exchange India Limited and the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, respectively granted their no objection to the said concurrent and composite scheme. On 23/04/2012, the Competition Commission of India approved the proposed combination including the transaction as provided for in the concurrent scheme and the composite scheme. On 26/04/2012 the High Court of Judicature at Madras dispensed with the convening of the meeting of the Equity Share Holders of SEL in view of the consent affidavit given by all Equity Share Holders to the composite scheme. On 26/04/2012, the Madras High Court dispensed with the convening of the meeting of Equity Share Holders of VAL in view of the consent affidavit given by all Equity Share Holders and Preference Share Holders to the composite Scheme. On 19/06/2012, the Equity Share Holders of SGL approved the composite scheme at the Court convened meeting with the requisite majority as prescribed under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short). On 19/06/2012 itself, the equity shareholders of SGL approved the concurrent scheme at the Court convened meeting with the requisite majority as prescribed under Section 391(2) of the Act. On 21/06/2012, the equity share holders of SIIL approved the composite scheme at Court convened meeting. On 23/06/2012, the equity shareholders of MALCO approved the composite scheme at the Court convened meeting. Mr. G. D. Kamat, the learned retired Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court acted as the Chairman of the said meeting dated 19/06/2012 and reported the result of the equity shareholders of SGL of the said meetings by his report dated 04/07/2012 along with his affidavit in support thereof. On 29/06/2012 the Foreign Investment Promotion Board of India approved the transaction as proposed in the concurrent scheme. On 02/08/2012, the advertisement of petitions in accordance with rule 80 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 with respect to both the company Petitions were published in the local newspapers namely Navhind Times and Sunaprant. On 24/08/2012, the Supreme Court of Mauritius approved the concurrent Scheme. The company petitions filed by SIIL, MALCO, SEL and VAL, for sanction of composite scheme, have reportedly been heard by Madras High Court and the judgments have been reserved.4. SGL had filed the company petition no. 11/2012 seeking sanction of the company Court to the concurrent scheme and company petition no. 12/2012 thereby seeking sanction of the Company Court to the composite scheme. The appellant filed his objections to the said schemes on various grounds. The company petitions and objections raised by the appellant were extensively heard by the learned Company Judge and upon appraisal of the entire material on record, the learned Judge allowed the company petitions and rejected the objections of the appellant. The said common judgment and order dated 3/4/2013 is impugned in the present appeals.

Reasoning: In our considered opinion, there is no merit in the submission canvassed by the appellant that the said Writ Petition and the Suit have nowith the issues raised in the presentview of the above, there is force in the submission of Mr. Chagla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of SGL that the 38.8% stake of CIL is not the subject matter of the valuation report dated 24/2/2012 prepared by joint valuers and that what has been considered is only the investment infind that there is absolutely no substance in the above objection of the appellant on alleged modification of the schemes. Insofar as, the affidavit filed before the Madras High Court, is concerned, the learned Counsel on behalf of SGL, submitted that the said undertaking given to the Court cannot be held as modification of the scheme. We agree with the learned Counsel, because, admittedly, there is no amendment moved to the Court for modification of the scheme. What is stated in the affidavit is postmerger and about taking over all liabilities post amalgamation. This point has been elaborately considered by the learned Company Judge. The learned Judge has observed that a perusal of the affidavit discloses that in order to give comfort to the Residual VAL which would become subsidiary of the amalgamated Company and to give assurance to its creditors that they would be taken care of, it was stated that after the scheme was sanctioned if the Residual VAL was not in a position to repay the debts of its creditors, in that event the said debts would be paid by the amalgamating company. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, as per the clause 3.3.1 of the scheme of Residual VAL, all the assets, liabilities and obligations pertaining thereto shall continue to belong to and be vested in and be managed by VAL. Clause 3.3.2 (ii) mentions that if proceedings are taken up against SGL in respect of the matters referred to in1(i) above, it shall defend the same in accordance with the advice of VAL and at the cost of VAL, and the latter shall reimburse and indemnify SGL against all liabilities and obligations incurred by SGL in respect thereof.In view of the discussion supra, the contention of the appellant that there is violation of the provisions of Section 391 of the Act inasmuch as SGL has modified the schemes with regard to CIL and that CIL is considered for valuation therefore there was modification to the proposed schemes before seeking approval of the shareholders of SGL as also before the Company Court and further that the schemes have been modified after filing the petitions before the Company Court in view of affidavit filed in Madras High Court, is without legal sanctity, and liable to be rejected.23. Further, for the same reasons as above, the contention of the appellant that since the scheme had been valued by considering the valuation of CIL and its associated debt though CIL is not part of merger, due to which the scheme is modified and therefore the joint valuation is skewed and predetermined, has no force. Similarly, the submission that since Residual VALs liabilities have been undertaken by SGL, the scheme stands modified and hence the joint valuation is skewed and predetermined, has also nodo not find anything wrong in the above observations made by the Company Court. Be that as it may, the said SFIO report could not have come in the way of amalgamation, since Company remains and the erring directors, officers, etc of SGL would be subject to the consequences that would arise from that report. During the course of arguments, the appellant had fairly conceded that the SFIO report is not relevant and does not come in the way of sanction of the schemes. Hence, there cannot be any need to file the SFIO report along with the Company Petitions for sanction of Schemes. The appellant had himself filed the report along with his reply to the Petition. According to the appellant, though the SFIO report was with him, however, the same was not with any other shareholder. As has been rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for SGL, the other equity shareholders had not raised any objection regarding non disclosure of SFIO report.Therefore, there is no merit in the objection raised by the appellant, regarding the alleged suppression of the SFIO report dated 29/4/2011 from the shareholders or the Company Court or about the allegedof the same by the joint valuers. Further, the contention of the appellant that the joint valuation is skewed since the valuers have not considered the alleged siphoning of more than Rs. 1,000/crores disclosed in the SFIO report dated 29/4/2012, has also no merit at all. There is also no substance in the allegation that there is violation of public policy and public interest, since alleged siphoning of huge amount was in respect of national wealth i.e. ironthe appellant cannot be heard to say that the valuation is skewed since the methodology insofar as the valuation for VAL is concerned, has been incorrectlythere is no force in the contention of the appellant that the joint valuers and the merchant bankers have been misled whilst arriving at the valuation. The valuation report cannot be held to be skewed on such ground.the present cases, it is not the case of the appellant that the valuers were notthere is nothing wrong in the observation of the learned Company Court that merely because the date 23/02/2012 has appeared in one of the documents, on the basis of that date it is not possible to arrive at the conclusion that prior to the approval given by the Board of Directors, swap ratio was already known onthe present case, instead of himself producing material in the form of valuation done by some other experts in the field of accountancy, before the Company Court, for understanding as to how the report of joint valuers was unreliable, the appellant wanted the Company Court to appoint fresh valuers at his cost in the event the Court was of the opinion that it could not go into the conclusion reached by the expert valuers. we accept the submission made by Mr. Chagla, learned Senior Counsel for SGL that swap value is for the valuers to evaluate and the same is not an exercise that the Court would embark upon. Valuation cannot be the job of Counsel for the parties or even of the Court as the same requires expertise. It is a complex technical problem which should be left to the consideration of experts in the field of accountancy. It was pointed out by learned Counsel for SGL that the petitioner is not a Chartered Accountant whereas the renowned Chartered Accountants have carried out the valuation and in addition to the said valuation there are fairness reports given by internationally acclaimed groups of Chartered Accountants in accordance with the SEBI regulations. No mala fides have been attributed against these valuers. The method of valuation is not challenged. Nothing had prevented the appellant to engage any expert valuer and to show the discrepancies. Mr. Chagla, learned Counsel, pointed out that even in the present appeals the appellant has not produced any report of the expert valuer and on the contrary the appellant is asking the Court to send the matter for fresh valuation. He further submitted that the said valuers are not here forAlmost all the same contentions on valuation and fairness opinion reports, canvassed before this Court, were raised before the Company Court which has held that the submissions are nothing but conjectures and surmises and the own opinion of the Objector (appellant) in respect of valuation and fairness report and his own analysis as to how the swap ratio which is arrived at by the valuers, is wrong. We do not find any error in the aboveis no merit in the submission of the appellant that the Company Court ought to have appointed a valuer from the panel of valuers to ascertain the correct valuations of the companies involved in the schemes of amalgamation. We do not see any reason to interfere with the valuation arrived at by the jointit is not correct to say that a false and misleading statement was made by SGL in the Explanatory Statement made to the shareholders. Therefore there is no violation of the provisions of Section 393 of the Act, on thiscontention that the schemes are unconscionable has noas the above, contention is concerned, the said provisional SFIO report dated 29/4/2011 had not culminated into prosecution and had to go to the Central Government for approval. SGL had made representations to the Secretary, Ministry of corporate Affairs in response to the said SFIO report. The SFIO then prepared another report after considering said the representations and submissions sent by SGL to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, thereby explaining the stand of SGL on the allegations made in SFIOs report and denying those allegations. In the fresh report, it is stated that had these representations been there prior to the preparation of the first report, then the conclusions in that report would have been different with regard to under invoicing, over invoicing and other aspects and these conclusions would have been in favour of SGL. By letter dated 10/5/2013, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has stated that they have advised SFIO not to file prosecution against SGL, for alleged violations. There is therefore no force in the submission of the appellant that the schemes are a ruse to stifle the further action that was required to be taken by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, in terms of the recommendations made in the SFIO report dated 29/4/2011.49. We make it clear that though we have not referred to each and every judgment relied upon by the parties, however, we have considered the principles laid down in each of them.50. Taking over all view of the matter, we are of the considered view that all the statutory requirements were complied with. The schemes do not violate any of the provisions of the Act and also do not violate any principles of natural justice and cannot be termed as against public policy and public interest. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment. The objections have been rightly rejected by the learned Company Judge and the schemes have been sanctioned by applying the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no interference is called for.