Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19.(5) The amalgamation or merger would result in creation of monopoly power with Reliance Industries Limited. Acquisition of monopoly power and the resultant anti-competitive behaviour are opposed to public interest and public policy.

19.(6) The proposed scheme of amalgamation completely ignores the interest of the society at large. The proposed scheme does not guarantee creation of more jobs or more competition or availability of products to the consumers at cheaper prices.

19.(7) The conduct of the petitioner Company bars it from claiming any relief in the Company Petition. Before the equity shareholders' meeting on 14.4.2007, certain minority equity shareholders were threatened to sign blank proxy forms in the petitioner Company. This antecedent conduct of the petitioner Company is a relevant factor to be taken into account by the Company Court at the time of sanction.

PROXIES:

21. Serious irregularities were committed by the petitioner Company in obtaining proxies from certain minority equity shareholders of IPCL. Certain minorities equity shareholders of IPCL were threatened or coerced into signing blank proxy forms by the Heads of Departments of IPCL before the day of the equity shareholders' meeting. First, the registered trade Unions of IPCL complained about this to the Chairman of IPCL by writing a letter on 10.4.2007. Second, the said complaint was lodged with the Chairman of the equity shareholders' meeting on 14.4.2007. On 17.4.2007, a complaint regarding this was also made to the Chairman to Securities Exchange Board of India.

(h) (2000) 99 Comp. Case 276.

(i) In Re: Alfa Quartz Ltd. (2001) 104 Comp. Case 71 (Guj).

(j) In Re: Gujarat Ambuja Cotspin Ltd., In Re: Gujarat Ambuja Protein Ltd., In Re: Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd (2001) 104 Comp. Case 397 (Guj).

(k) In Re: H.K. Dave P. Ltd., In Re: H.K. Gas Co. P. Ltd. (2001) 104 Comp Case 650 (Guj).

(I) RE: PROXIES:

29. It is a false, baseless and bald allegation that any coercive method or force was applied for signing Proxy forms.

29.1 Not a single person has addressed any letter to the Chairman of the Court convened meetings or the Company for withdrawal of his proxy.

29.2 Even otherwise, during the meeting, the Chairman had assured that even if any of the employee shareholders had given a proxy form earlier, but if they were present at the meeting, then they would be entitled to participate in the voting and the proxy forms given earlier would be held invalid, while their votes would be considered. Chairman had also instructed scrutineers accordingly. This is also stated in the Chairman's Report submitted to this Court. Thus, there is no violation of the provisions of the Companies Act as also of the order of this Court dated 16.3.2007 in Company Application No.126 of 2007 as alleged.