Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. All other objections under (b) to (i) can be discussed under one head. The Objector has contended that the material indicated in Section 393(1)(a) of the Companies Act was not placed before the members in the Notice and at the meeting. The Transferor Company, in their counter affidavit filed for the objections, have stated that the Statement circulated to the members under Section 393 has set out the relevant information as contemplated with regard to the Scheme of Amalgamation and the shareholding pattern of the Directors in both the Companies have been set out and the balance sheets of both the Transferor and the Transferee Companies set out the financial position as on 31.3.2001 and, therefore, it is not necessary to mention in the statement under Section 393 about the individual holdings of Tata or Reddy group. They have specifically denied the allegation of the Objector that the provisions of Companies Act were not complied with. According to the Chairman, he sent individual notices to all the shareholders by certificate of posting enclosing a copy of the scheme of amalgamation, explanation statement under Section 393 and the proxy form and he has filed affidavit of service before this Court. The Statement under Section 393 of the Companies Act, sent to the shareholders, sets out in detail the shareholding of the Directors of the Company and it is further stated in it that the copies of various documents, including valuation report, are open for inspection at the Registered Office of the Company. Hence, the contention that the relevant material was not placed before the shareholders is not correct.