Ufo Moviez India Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Corporate ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may not reject a scheme of merger under Sections 230–232 of the Companies Act, 2013 on grounds that are not among the matters the Tribunal is required to examine under those provisions; where the Tribunal's rejection rests on such extraneous grounds, the order is liable to be set aside. Where the statutory procedure under Sections 230–232 has been complied with, the Tribunal's examination is confined to those statutory requirements, and the scheme is to be considered on that basis. Where a scheme of merger is approved, the sanctioned companies must, in implementing it, comply with the procedure under Sections 230–232 and other applicable law, including any necessary permissions from the Income Tax Department and SEBI, and the applicable accounting standards, so that the shareholders do not suffer prejudice by reason of the merger.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: UFO Moviez India Ltd. & Anr. .....Appellants Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Through the Regional Director, Western Region ......Respondent
Present : For Appellant: Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sonali Mathur, Ms. Roopali Singh, Mr. Aman Sharma, Ms. Neeraja Balakrishnan, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Shorey, Director, Mr. R.K. Tiwari, JD Mr. Balooni, AD for R-1
O R D E R
24.10.2019 - 'Qube Cinema Technologies Private Limited' ('QCTPL' for short)
demerges business synergic with 'UFO Moviez India Ltd.' (Appellant herein), into
'QDCPL' businesses that are non-synergic were left behind in 'QCTPL'.
Subsequently, MPL merged into 'QDCPL' resulting dissolution of 'MPL'. The
Intellectual property rights of the demerged entity, 'QCTPL' would vest in 'QDCPL
along with the nil value intellectual property rights of 'MPL'. All shareholders in
'QCTPL' and 'MPL' were allotted shares in 'QDCPL' as a consideration for the
demerger and merger above.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2019 The 53.2% of the shareholders of 'QCTPL' did not wish to participate in the
business that would have been demerged into 'QDCPL' and subsequently UFO.
Accordingly, they were provided an opportunity to exit such business of 'QCTPL'
as would have been demerged into 'QDCPL' and onwards. Accordingly, 'UFO
Moviez' (Appellant herein) and New Investors were to purchase the shares of the
Sellers through SPA. The SPA was not part of the scheme, and was only
described (i) to ensure accurate representation of the post-merger shareholding
structure of UFO; and (ii) disclose the relevant linkage and steps contemplated
in relation to the entire transaction.
The effect was that 'QDCPL' merges into UFO; pursuant to which 'QDCPL'
dissolves. UFO issues shares to the shareholders of 'QDCPL'.
'IPR' flowing from 'QCTPL' (through 'QDCPL') to 'UFO' is transferred to
PJSA by way of a slump sale.
The aforesaid scheme was approved by all the parties to the Scheme,
including by the shareholders of 'QCTPL' included the approval of shareholders
of 'QCTPL' who would be provided an exit from 'QDCPL' pursuant to the scheme.
The decision relating to merger of 'QCTPL' with 'QDCPL' and 'MPL' by
'National Company Law Tribunal' (Chennai).
The 'UFO Moviez India Ltd.' (Appellant herein) (1st Appellant) and 'PJSA'
(2nd Appellant herein) having its registered office at Mumbai filed a separate
Company Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2019 2 Application for modification and 'Scheme of Merger' u/s 230-232 of the
Companies Act, 2013 before 'National Company Law Tribunal', Mumbai.
Before the 'National Company Law Tribunal', Mumbai the Appellant(s)
brought to their notice that all the procedures prescribed u/s 230 and 232 of
the Companies Act, 2013 were followed. This was noticed by the 'National
Company Law Tribunal' Mumbai. However, by impugned order dated 21st
January, 2019, the 'National Company Law Tribunal' Mumbai rejected the
Application of Merger on certain ground which was not required to be noticed for
determination of merger u/s 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The said order is under challenge in these Appeals. Director (Legal &
Prosecutor), Ministry of Corporate Affairs appearing on behalf of 'Union of India'.
He accepts that the ground given for rejection in the impugned order dated 21st
January, 2019 were uncalled for and the Tribunal was only required to notice
all the requirements of Section 230-232 of Companies Act. The Tribunal was
also required to follow the Accounting Standard for the treatment of
shareholders. However, it is expected that such Issue was not raised and were
not discussed by the 'National Company Law Tribunal'.
Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even
if the Appellate Tribunal allow 'Merger', it will not be given effect to, because of
certain financial changes made during the pendency of the petition of this
Appeal. It is to be re-worked and fresh date is to be notified after following the
procedure.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2019 3
In view of the stand taken by the parties and taking into consideration
the facts of the case, we set aside the impugned order passed by the 'National
Company Law Tribunal' Mumbai Bench.
If the Appellant Companies proceeds further, it should follow the
procedure enshrined in Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 and other
provisions as required to be followed under the Law including the permission
from the Income Tax Department and requirement, if any, from SEBI and if
procedure required to be followed under Accounting Standard so as to ensure
that the shareholders do not suffer on 'Merger'.
The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
ss/sk
Company Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2019 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free