SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4504

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Member (Judicial), Shri. Radhakrishna Sreepada, Member (Technical)
Space Matrix Design Consultants Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Blink Design Private Limited – Respondent
C.P. (CAA) No. 21/BB/2024



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Shri Rahul Aggarwal
For the ROC: Shri Hemanth Rao
For the I.T. Department: Shri Ganesh Ghale

The Tribunal emphasized strict adherence to compliance and statutory requirements in sanctioning a Composite Scheme of Arrangement, focusing on the protection of stakeholders' interests amid the merger.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Sections 230, 231, 232, 66 - Composite Scheme of Arrangement - Sanction sought for a Composite Scheme involving the transfer of shares and mergers - Compliance with statutory requirements ensured by the applicant companies concerning financial obligations, statutory dues, and related party transactions. (Paras 1-22)

(B) Scheme of Amalgamation - The Tribunal allowed the petitioner's request for modification of the appointed date and addressed the objections raised by Regulatory Authorities, emphasizing due adherence to legal requirements regarding outstanding dues and compliance under relevant laws. (Paras 17-19)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners seek approval for a Composite Scheme of Amalgamation, having complied with prior requisites as per the Companies Act, while addressing issues raised by regulatory authorities on statutory dues and compliance with provisions under FEMA.

Findings of Court:
The Composite Scheme is binding on all Shareholders and Creditors. The order mandates certain financial compliance obligations to ensure lawful operation post-merger.

Issues: Key issues involved the appointed date for the scheme, compliance with statutory requirements, and the scheme's impact on shareholders and creditors.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal stipulated that due compliance with legal frameworks related to mergers must be strictly followed and emphasized the importance of protecting statutory rights of stakeholders.

Result: The Composite Scheme of Arrangement is sanctioned with conditions.

Table of Content
1. petition for composite scheme of arrangement filed (Para 1 , 2)
2. notice and compliance with statutory obligations outlined (Para 3 , 4)
3. objections from regulatory authorities reviewed (Para 11 , 12)
4. scheme sanctioned with compliance conditions established (Para 19 , 20)

ORDER

1. This is a Second Motion Petition filed on 22.02.2024 by Space Matrix Design Consultants Private Limited (for brevity, the ‘Applicant Company No.1/ Transferee Company’), and Blink Design Private Limited (for brevity, the ‘Applicant Company No.2/ Transferor Company No.1’) under Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short to be referred hereinafter as the ‘Act’) and Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 (for brevity, ‘Rules’) by inter alia seeking for the sanction of Composite Scheme of Arrangement of Applicant Company No.1 and Applicant Company No.2 and their respective Shareholders and Creditors. The Composite Scheme of Amalgamation is annexed as Annexure A-1 to the Petition.

2. The Applicant Companies filed First Motion Application under section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 bearing CA ( CA A) No. 27/BB/2023 before this Tribunal and vide order dated 07.12.2023 of this Tribunal, the meeting of Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Companies, Secured Creditors of the Transferee Company and Unsecure Creditors of the Transferor Company were dispensed with and directed to convene the meeting of Unsecured Creditors of the Transferee Company. There were no Secured Creditors in Transferor Company.

3. The following directions were issued by this Tribunal, vide Order dated 14.06.2024:

“4. The Petition be listed for hearing on 30.01.2025. At least 10 days before the date fixed for final hearing, the Petitioner Company shall publish the notice of final hearing of the Company Petition in two local newspapers viz. “Business Standard” in English Edition and translation thereof in “Kannada Prabha” in Kannada Edition, as per Rule 16 of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016.

5.Notice be also served upon the Objector(s) or their representative as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 230 of the Act who may have made representation and who have desired to be heard in their representation along with a copy of the Petition and the annexures filed therewith at least 15 days before the date fixed for hearing. It is to be specified in the notices that the objections, if any, to the Scheme may be filed within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice, failing which it will be considered that there is no objection to the approval of the Scheme on the part of the objectors.

6.In addition to the above public notice, each of the Petitioner Company shall serve the notice of the Petition on the following Authorities namely, (i) the Central Government through the office of the Regional Director (South East Region); (ii) Concerned Registrar of Companies; (iii) Nodal Officer of Income Tax Department - the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka & Goa; (iv) Official Liquidator; (v) The Assessing Officer, Kormangala, Bengaluru; (vi) SEBI/BSE/NSE and (vii) other Sectoral Regulators/ Authorities if any, along with the copy of this Petition by speed post immediately and to such other Sectoral Regulator(s) who may govern the working of the respective Companies involved in the Scheme as per Rule 8 of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016, with a direction that they may submit their representation, if any, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which it will be presumed that the said Authority has no representation to make to the Scheme.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the authorized signatory of the Applicant Companies has filed copies of proof of service of notice vide Diary No. 4431 dated 26.07.2024 along with copies of paper publication of notice of hearing and Diary No. 5677 dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top