Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Digjam Textiles Limited vs Respondent(S) on 17 February, 2016

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

                 O/COMP/432/2015                                                ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            COMPANY PETITION NO. 432 of 2015
                      In COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 332 of 2015
                                             With
                            COMPANY PETITION NO. 433 of 2015
                      In    COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 331 of 2015
         ================================================================
                           DIGJAM TEXTILES LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
                                           Versus
                                    ......Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR KSHITIJ AMIN FOR MR DEVANG VYAS, ADVOCATE for Respondent No.
         1
         ================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI

                                      Date : 17/02/2016
                                   COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate for the  petitioner  submits that  page­89   in   Company   Petition   No.433/2015   has   been  wrongly annexed, as it is a duplicate of page­90. She  prays   for   permission   to   replace   page­89   with   the  correct page. Permission to do so, is granted. Learned  advocate  for   the  petitioner  further   submits   that  insofar as Company Petition No.432/2015 is concerned,  page­83 has been wrongly annexed, as it is a duplicate  of page­84. She prays for permission to replace page­ 83 with the correct page. She is permitted to do so.



                                          Page 1 of 12

HC-NIC                                  Page 1 of 12     Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016
                  O/COMP/432/2015                                           ORDER



2. These petitions have been filed by the Petitioner  Companies   for   the   sanction   of   the   Scheme   of  Amalgamation   between   Digjam   Limited   and   Digjam  Textiles   Limited   and   their   respective   creditors   and  shareholders ("Scheme") under Sections­391 to 394 of  the Companies Act, 1956, along with the corresponding  provisions of Companies Act, 2013.

3. Digjam Limited ("DL" or "Transferor Company") is  a listed public limited company and the shares of DL  are listed on BSE Limited ('BSE') and National Stock  Exchange   of   India   Limited   ('NSE').   Digjam   Textiles  Limited ("DTL" or "Transferee Company") is an unlisted  public   limited   company,   the   entire   share   capital   of  which is held by DL and its nominees. 

4. The said Scheme is proposed in order to provide  greater financial strength and flexibility which would  result   in   maximizing   overall   shareholder   value   and  improve the economic and competitive position of the  combined   entity;   achieve   greater   efficiencies   in  operations   with   optimum   utilization   of   resources,  better   administration   and   reduced   cost;   better  financial,   business   and   operational   aspects   and  Page 2 of 12 HC-NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER improved   administrative   control   of   the   Amalgamated  Company.  The petitions give, in detail, the benefits  envisaged due to the Scheme.

5. It is further the case of the petitioners that DL  is   a   public   limited   company.   The   shares   of   DL   are  listed on BSE and NSE. In compliance with clause 24(f)  of   the   listing   agreement,   DL   had   approached   the  concerned   stock   exchanges,   and   the   approval/  clearances obtained from the said exchanges had been  placed on record.

6. With   respect   to   DL,   pursuant   to   order   dated  02.11.2015,   passed   by   this   Court   in   Company  Application No.331 of 2015, the meeting of the Equity  Shareholders   of   DL   was   held   as   per   the   directions  given in the said order and the Scheme was unanimously  approved by the Equity Shareholders. The Chairman had  submitted   a   report   dated   12.12.2015   in   respect  thereof. The meetings of the Preference Shareholders,  Secured   Creditors   and   Unsecured   Creditors   were  dispensed with. This Court has also dispensed with the  meeting   of   the   Secured   Creditors   and   directed   the  Transferor Company to send individual notices to the  Page 3 of 12 HC-NIC Page 3 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER Secured   Creditors   of   DL.   The   affidavit   dated  14.12.2015, confirming the said compliance, had been  placed on record. 

7. Further,   with   respect   to   DTL,   pursuant   to   the  order   dated   02.11.2015,   passed   by   this   Court   in  Company Application No.332 of 2015, the meeting of the  Equity   Shareholders,   Secured   Creditors   and   Unsecured  Creditors was dispensed with.

8. The substantive petitions filed by the petitioner  Companies   were   admitted,  vide  an   order   dated   18th  December, 2015. The public notices for the same were  duly   advertised   in   the   Ahmedabad   edition   of   the  English   daily   newspaper   "Indian   Express"   and   in   the  Gujarati   daily   newspaper   "Jansatta",   on   30.12.2015.  The   publication   in   the   Government   Gazette   was  dispensed with. The above facts are confirmed by two  affidavits, both dated 23.01.2016, filed on behalf of  the petitioner companies.  

9. The petitioner­Transferor Company has also filed  an Affidavit before this Court, wherein it is stated  that individual notices dated 10th November, 2015 were  Page 4 of 12 HC-NIC Page 4 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER served on the three Secured Creditors i.e. UCO Bank,  State   Bank   of   India   and   HDFC   Bank   Limited.   It   is  submitted before this Court that in pursuance to the  notices being served, no objections have been received  from   any   of   the   Secured   Creditors.   It   is   further  submitted that HDFC Bank has given its consent to the  said Scheme.  

10. Notice of the petition has been served upon the  Regional   Director   (Western   Region),   in   response   to  which Shri Devang Vyas, Assistant Solicitor General of  India  has   filed   his   appearance   in   all   the  petitions  and   an   affidavit   dated   2nd  February,   2016   has   been  filed by the Regional Director, North- Western Region,  Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 

11. In   the   above   affidavit,   the   Regional   Director  has, inter alia, made the following observations:

a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct   the petitioner companies to comply with the  SEBI circulars as conveyed by NSE and BSE.
b) Hon'ble   Court   may   therefore   be   pleased   to   direct   the   transferee   company   to   ensure  about   the   compliances   of   FEMA   and   RBI  guidelines,   in   the   matter,   from   time   to  Page 5 of 12 HC-NIC Page 5 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER time.
c) It   is   therefore   submitted   that   the   petitioner transferee company should pay the  necessary   fees   including   other   fees   and  charges   for   alteration   of   its   name   to  M/s.Digjam Limited in compliance of Section  13 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Hon'ble   Court may therefore be pleased to direct the   petitioner transferee company to comply with  the   relevant   provisions   of   the   Companies  Act, Name availability guidelines and ensure  the   payment   of   applicable   fees/charges   for  alteration   of   the   name   of   the   petitioner  transferee   company   as   M/s.Digjam   Limited,  besides payment of Stamp Duty payable as per   rules   of   transfer   of   assets   to   transferee  company on amalgamation.
d) The   Hon'ble   Court   may   therefore   be   pleased   to   direct   the   petitioner   companies   to  undertake   compliance   of   Income   Tax   Act   and   Rules in the matter.

12. In response to the first observation made by the  Regional   Director,   Ms.Dharmishta   Raval,   learned  advocate for the petitioners has submitted that DL has  already complied with the said circulars of SEBI and  has obtained NOC from the stock exchanges who have, in  turn,   obtained   the   same   from   SEBI,   which   have   been  placed on record. It is further stated that all the  Page 6 of 12 HC-NIC Page 6 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER requirements   of   the   circulars   and   all   circulars   of  SEBI, as applicable, would be scrupulously adhered to  by DL and DTL.

13. In   view   of   the   fact   that   the   petitioners   have  already complied with the circulars of SEBI and have  obtained   NOC   from   the   stock   exchanges,   who   have   in  turn obtained the same from SEBI, the observation made  by the Regional Director stands addressed. However, DL  and DTL are directed to comply with the SEBI Circulars  and the rules.

14. With   reference   to   the   second   observation,  Ms.Raval has submitted that Transferee Company would  comply with the applicable FEMA and RBI guidelines at  the   time   of   issue   of   shares   to   the   Non­Resident  shareholders, pursuant to the sanction of the Scheme  of Amalgamation.

15. With   reference   to   the   third   observation,  Ms.Raval, relying on a Judgment of this High Court in  the   matter   of  Mekaster   Valves   Engineering   Services  Private Limited ([2009] Comp. Cases 593),   submitted  that   under   the   settled   principle   of   Single   Window  Page 7 of 12 HC-NIC Page 7 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER Clearance,   all   the   changes   proposed   as   an   integral  part   of   the  Scheme   become   operative  upon   the  Scheme  becoming   effective   by   virtue   of   the   fact   that   the  Shareholders   of   the   Transferee   Company,   while  approving   the   Scheme  as  a   whole,  have   also   accorded  the relevant consents as required respectively under  Sections­13   and   14   of   the   Companies   Act,   2013   and  Section­394 of the said Act, or any other provisions  of the statute, and there is no reason to undertake  separate   formalities   for   change   in   the   name   of   the  petitioner companies. Having regard to the undertaking  given   by   the   petitioner   companies   in   the   affidavit  filed before this Court, to pay the necessary fees and  charges,   no   further   directions   are   required   to   be  issued to the petitioner companies in this regard. 

16. Dealing   with   the   fourth   observation,   the  petitioner companies undertake to comply with all the  applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules.  No further directions are required to be issued to the  petitioner companies in this regard.

17. It may be noted that the Regional Director has,  in his affidavit, also stated that as per the report  Page 8 of 12 HC-NIC Page 8 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER of the Registrar of Companies, there is no complaint  against the petitioner companies.

18. In response to the notice issued by this Court,  the Official Liquidator has filed his Report dated 5th  February,   2016,   wherein,   it   is,  inter­alia,   stated  that the Official Liquidator solicited certain details  from   the   petitioner­Transferor   Company,   which   were  supplied.   The   Official   Liquidator   obtained  investigation   report   dated   31st  March,   2015   from  M/s.Suresh   R.   Shah   &   Associates,   Chartered  Accountants,   who   submitted   such   investigation   report  after scrutinizing the books of accounts and affairs  of   the   petitioner­Transferor   Company.   The   Official  Liquidator,   after   examining   the   details   and   the  comments   offered   by   the   Chartered   Accountants,   has  opined   that   in   view   of   the   report   of   the   Chartered  Accountants, the affairs of the petitioner­Transferor  Company   have   not   been   conducted   in   a   manner  prejudicial to the interest of its members or to the  public   interest   in   terms   of   the   second   proviso   to  Section­394(1)   of   the   Companies   Act,   1956   and,  therefore, DL may be dissolved without being wound­up.





                                       Page 9 of 12

HC-NIC                               Page 9 of 12     Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016
                  O/COMP/432/2015                                             ORDER




19. As regards the observation raised by the Official  Liquidator in his report under paragraph­19, stating  that the petitioner­Transferor Company be directed to  preserve its books of accounts, papers and records and  not dispose the same without prior permission of the  Central   Government   as   per   Section   396A   of   the  Companies Act, 1956, it is submitted by Ms.Raval, upon  instructions,   that   as   observed   by   the   Official  Liquidator   the  books  of  account   and  papers   would   be  preserved   by   the   petitioner­Company   as   per   Section­ 396A of the Companies Act, 1956.

20. In view of the above discussion, the observations  made   by   the   Regional   Director   having   been   addressed  and   the   Official   Liquidator   having   opined   that   the  affairs of the petitioner­Transferor Company have not  been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest  of its members or to the public interest, in the view  of   this   Court,   there   does   not   appear   to   be   any  impediment   in   granting     sanction   to   the   Scheme   of  Amalgamation.   From   the   material   on   record   and   on   a  perusal of the Scheme, the Scheme appears to be fair  and reasonable and not in violation to any provisions  Page 10 of 12 HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER of law or contrary to public policy. The amalgamation  under   the   proposed   Scheme   appears   to   be   in   the  interest   of   the   companies   and   their   members   and  creditors,   therefore,   the   Scheme   deserves   to   be  sanctioned. Accordingly, the Scheme as proposed by the  petitioner   companies   is   hereby   sanctioned.   It   is  however, clarified that the sanctioning of this Scheme  would   not   absolve   the  petitioners   or   anyone   who   is  otherwise liable for any responsibility or liability,  only on account of this sanctioning.

21. The   petitioner   companies   shall   pay   towards  professional   charges   to   learned   Assistant   Solicitor  General   Rs.10,000/­   in   respect   of   DL   being   listed  company and Rs.7,500/­ in respect of DTL. The Official  Liquidator   shall   be   paid   costs   of   Rs.7,500/­,   in  respect of the petition filed by DL.

22. The petitioner Companies are further directed to  lodge a copy of this order, the schedules of immovable  assets pertaining to DL as on the date of this order  and   the   Scheme   duly   authenticated   by   the   Registrar,  High   Court   of   Gujarat,   with   the   concerned  Superintendent   of   Stamps,   for   the   purpose   of  Page 11 of 12 HC-NIC Page 11 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016 O/COMP/432/2015 ORDER adjudication of stamp duty, if any, on the same within  60 days from the date of the order.

23. The petitioner Companies are directed to file a  copy   of   this   order   along   with   a   copy   of   the   Scheme  with   the   concerned   Registrar   of   Companies,  electronically, along with E­From INC­28 in addition  to   physical   copy   as   per   relevant   provisions   of   the  Act.

24. Filing and issuance of drawn up order is hereby  dispensed with. 

25. All   concerned   authorities   to   act   on   a   copy   of  this order along with the Scheme duly authenticated by  the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat. The Registrar,  High   Court   of   Gujarat   shall   issue   the   authenticated  copy of this order along with Scheme as expeditiously  as possible.

26. Registry to maintain copy of this order in each  of the company petitions.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 12 of 12 HC-NIC Page 12 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:50:38 IST 2016