{"id":23781,"date":"2026-05-07T11:06:17","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T11:06:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=23781"},"modified":"2026-05-07T11:11:56","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T11:11:56","slug":"the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/","title":{"rendered":"The Evolution &amp; Applicability Of Corporate Restructuring Laws in India In Consideration With Hindustan Lever Employees\u2019 Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd."},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>After independence, India as a nation adopted and implemented mixed economic policies, which were carried out within the framework of multi-party democracy. The first Prime Minister of India, <strong>Mr Jawaharlal Nehru<\/strong>, explicitly acclaimed his socialist view towards the Nation and its economy[1].<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#State_Control_And_Economic_Policies\" >State Control And Economic Policies<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Economic_Liberalisation_In_India\" >Economic Liberalisation In India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Rise_Of_Mergers_And_Acquisitions_Law\" >Rise Of Mergers And Acquisitions Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Judicial_Interpretation_Of_Amalgamation_Laws\" >Judicial Interpretation Of Amalgamation Laws<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Key_Highlights\" >Key Highlights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Important_Events_And_Legal_Developments\" >Important Events And Legal Developments<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Facts_of_the_Case\" >Facts of the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Proposal_for_Amalgamation_Between_TOMCO_and_HLL\" >Proposal for Amalgamation Between TOMCO and HLL<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Scheme_of_Amalgamation_Under_the_Companies_Act_1956\" >Scheme of Amalgamation Under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Shareholders_Meetings_and_Voting\" >Shareholders\u2019 Meetings and Voting<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Independent_Examination_of_Share_Exchange_Ratio\" >Independent Examination of Share Exchange Ratio<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Bombay_High_Court_and_Supreme_Court_Appeal\" >Bombay High Court and Supreme Court Appeal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Core_Legal_Issues_in_the_Case\" >Core Legal Issues in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Important_Highlights_of_the_Case\" >Important Highlights of the Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Issues_Identified\" >Issues Identified<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#1_Share_Exchange_Ratio_Valuation\" >1. Share Exchange Ratio Valuation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#2_Violation_of_Sections_391-393_of_the_Companies_Act_1956\" >2. Violation of Sections 391-393 of the Companies Act, 1956<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#3_Effect_of_the_Monopolies_and_Restrictive_Trade_Practices_Act_1969\" >3. Effect of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#4_Preferential_Allotment_of_Shares_to_Unilever_PLC\" >4. Preferential Allotment of Shares to Unilever PLC<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#5_Protection_of_Employees_Interests\" >5. Protection of Employees\u2019 Interests<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Summary_Table_of_Issues\" >Summary Table of Issues<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Key_Legal_Questions_Raised\" >Key Legal Questions Raised<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Share_Exchange_Ratio\" >Share Exchange Ratio<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Supreme_Court_Response_to_Petitioners_Contentions\" >Supreme Court Response to Petitioners\u2019 Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Valuation_Report_and_Book_Value_Dispute\" >Valuation Report and Book Value Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Financial_Performance_Comparison\" >Financial Performance Comparison<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Supreme_Court_on_Share_Valuation_Methods\" >Supreme Court on Share Valuation Methods<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Methods_Used_for_Share_Valuation\" >Methods Used for Share Valuation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Disclosure_of_Material_Facts_Jurisdiction\" >Disclosure of Material Facts &amp; Jurisdiction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Requirements_Under_Section_3931a\" >Requirements Under Section 393(1)(a)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Shareholders_Grievance_And_Court_Observation\" >Shareholders\u2019 Grievance And Court Observation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Disclosure_Regarding_Mr_Malegam\" >Disclosure Regarding Mr. Malegam<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Jurisdiction_Of_Company_Court\" >Jurisdiction Of Company Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Scope_Of_Court_Review_In_Amalgamation\" >Scope Of Court Review In Amalgamation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#The_Effect_of_Monopolies_Restrictive_Trade_Practices_Act_1969_MRTP\" >The Effect of Monopolies &amp; Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Powers_of_the_MRTP_Commission\" >Powers of the MRTP Commission<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#1991_Amendment_to_the_MRTP_Act\" >1991 Amendment to the MRTP Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Reason_Behind_the_Amendment\" >Reason Behind the Amendment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Supreme_Court_Observations_on_Merger_Approval\" >Supreme Court Observations on Merger Approval<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Key_Takeaways\" >Key Takeaways<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Public_Interest_In_Amalgamation\" >Public Interest In Amalgamation<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#English_Law_Reference_In_Amalgamation_Cases\" >English Law Reference In Amalgamation Cases<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-44\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Shareholding_And_Preferential_Allotment_Controversy\" >Shareholding And Preferential Allotment Controversy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-45\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Supreme_Court_Observations_On_Shareholders_Rights\" >Supreme Court Observations On Shareholders\u2019 Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-46\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Foreign_Investment_And_Public_Policy_Concerns\" >Foreign Investment And Public Policy Concerns<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-47\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Key_Legal_Principles_On_Public_Interest_In_Amalgamation\" >Key Legal Principles On Public Interest In Amalgamation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-48\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Interest_of_the_Employees\" >Interest of the Employees<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-49\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Supreme_Court_on_Protection_of_Workers\" >Supreme Court on Protection of Workers<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-50\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Wage_Disparity_Between_HLL_and_TOMCO_Employees\" >Wage Disparity Between HLL and TOMCO Employees<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-51\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Key_Findings_of_the_Court\" >Key Findings of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-52\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Critical_Analysis\" >Critical Analysis<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-53\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-54\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Judicial_Restraint_and_Internal_Business_Decisions\" >Judicial Restraint and Internal Business Decisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-55\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Company_Courts_Jurisdiction_in_Merger_Cases\" >Company Courts&#8217; Jurisdiction in Merger Cases<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-56\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#MRTP_Act_and_Legislative_Intent\" >MRTP Act and Legislative Intent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-57\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Public_Interest_and_Cross-Border_Mergers\" >Public Interest and Cross-Border Mergers<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-58\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Impact_on_Future_Judgments\" >Impact on Future Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-59\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Continuing_Relevance_of_the_Judgment\" >Continuing Relevance of the Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-60\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-evolution-applicability-of-corporate-restructuring-laws-in-india-in-consideration-with-hindustan-lever-employees-union-v-hindustan-lever-ltd\/#Final_Observations\" >Final Observations<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The government allowed private institutions to portray an essential role in Nation\u2019s economy while maintaining an adequate state intervention ensuring fair distribution of the growth[2]. India\u2019s first Companies Act was promulgated in 1956 after the recommendation of a committee headed by <strong>H.C Bhabha<\/strong>[3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It defined the term \u2018company\u2019 as an assembly of various individuals who assembled together formulating an individual body that possessed remarkable domination and was capable of executing various functions vested in it by the policies of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"state-control-and-economic-policies\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"State_Control_And_Economic_Policies\"><\/span>State Control And Economic Policies<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The State, while advocating for the development of private institutions, constantly seized autonomous control over various manufacturing as well as service provider institutions. An instance can be witnessed from the nationalisation of banks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 1969, commercial banks had a holding of over Rs. 50 Crores were nationalised. By the end of 1980, an enormous amount of 70% of total deposits was administered by the government[4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The political interference induced an exponential emergence in NPA\u2019s and other inadequate banking facilities. The economic situation became so perilous in beginning 1980s which coerced the Indian government to secure a total loan of Rs 97,500 Crores from the IMF[5].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"economic-liberalisation-in-india\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Economic_Liberalisation_In_India\"><\/span>Economic Liberalisation In India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It was only after 1990 when the Nation adopted economic liberalisation programme and officially accepted neoliberal ideology. After 1990, India became \u2018open\u2019 to foreign investments and privatisation and embraced its new economic model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The main objective of the policies was to reduce fiscal deficit and structure and stabilise India\u2019s economy. This new economic strategy was purely based on a reciprocal connection since it aided Indian legislations in interacting with the larger world economic and political context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The access to foreign legal materials effectuated an enormous increment in acquisitions, mergers, contract drafting, and privatisation of Government firms, leading to the advancement and amendment of corporate, commercial, administrative, environmental &amp; tax &amp; other legal sectors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rise-of-mergers-and-acquisitions-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rise_Of_Mergers_And_Acquisitions_Law\"><\/span>Rise Of Mergers And Acquisitions Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The increment in FDI posed a question on the applicability of corporate restructuring laws within the company law statute[6]. The concept of merger &amp; acquisition laws is an essential element of corporate structure and is a widely recognised concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the research on these laws has been unable to provide adequate information on the legal substructure of amalgamation of companies. Furthermore, the sheer uncertainty and inconclusive evidence to verify this concept\u2019s role in society has induced severe uncertainties for its validity, evolution and effect on the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The prevalence yet unawareness of the legislation in masses could become the potential ground for eventual inapplicability engendering revocation of these restructuring concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-interpretation-of-amalgamation-laws\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Interpretation_Of_Amalgamation_Laws\"><\/span>Judicial Interpretation Of Amalgamation Laws<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The author will analyse the evolution of specific provisions of company law while referring to the case of <strong>Hindustan Lever Employees\u2019 Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.<\/strong>[7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this case, the principle issue adjudicated by the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court pertained to the interpretation of the term \u2018public interest\u2019 in case of a merger with a foreign subsidiary organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prior to this case, the Apex Court in <strong>Milind Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Mihir Engineers Ltd.<\/strong>[8] observed that the court\u2019s sanction to the scheme of amalgamation is essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In another case of <strong>Shankaranarayan Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator<\/strong>[9], the Karnataka High Court postulated that the court must see whether the scheme is reasonable and fair to all parties. It shall not approve any scheme merely because BOD and its shareholders approve it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, the Calcutta High Court in <strong>Bengal Tea Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.<\/strong>[10] observed that the court has the authority to refuse a scheme of amalgamation if it is not in the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-highlights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Highlights\"><\/span>Key Highlights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>India initially adopted a mixed economic model after independence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Socialist economic policies were strongly supported by Jawaharlal Nehru.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Companies Act, 1956 played a foundational role in corporate governance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bank nationalisation significantly increased government control over the economy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Economic liberalisation after 1990 opened India to foreign investments and privatisation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>FDI growth increased the relevance of merger and acquisition laws.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Indian courts evolved jurisprudence concerning public interest in amalgamation schemes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-events-and-legal-developments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Events_And_Legal_Developments\"><\/span>Important Events And Legal Developments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Year<\/th><th>Event<\/th><th>Significance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1956<\/td><td>Companies Act Introduced<\/td><td>Established legal framework for companies in India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1969<\/td><td>Nationalisation of Banks<\/td><td>Increased State control over banking sector<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1980s<\/td><td>Economic Crisis<\/td><td>India sought IMF loan due to fiscal instability<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1990<\/td><td>Economic Liberalisation<\/td><td>Opened Indian economy to FDI and privatisation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"facts-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_the_Case\"><\/span>Facts of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. (TOMCO) was the first Indian company that was found in 1917 and was public since 1957. It manufactured and sold products such as soaps, detergents, toiletries and various others. TOMCO had more than 60,000 shareholders, out of which their parent company, Tata group, held 22% of the shares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>TOMCO\u2019s business decline initiated in 1990-91. In the financial year of 1991-92, it incurred a total loss of Rs 13 Crores. Subsequently, the loss increased to Rs 16 Crores in six consequent months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, the Board of Directors of TOMCO considered various alternatives for its retrieval from losses. The most prosperous proposal included association with HLL. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL) is another company that manufactures and sells these similar products. It is a subsidiary of London based company Unilever PLC. Subsequently, Unilever PLC held 51% shares in HLL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"proposal-for-amalgamation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Proposal_for_Amalgamation_Between_TOMCO_and_HLL\"><\/span>Proposal for Amalgamation Between TOMCO and HLL<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, the board of directors of TOMCO placed a proposal of amalgamation before the Board of Directors of HLL. The companies agreed to the proposal and appointed Mr Y.H. Malegam to evaluate the share price of both companies so that it would help them arrive at a fair share exchange ratio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mr Malegam is a senior partner of M\/s. S.B. Billimoria and Company, Chartered Accountants and director of RBI. On 19th March 1993, Mr Malegam gave a valuation report and recommended an exchange ratio of two equity shares of HLL for every fifteen ordinary shares of TOMCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Board of Directors of both companies accepted Malegam\u2019s recommendation and approved the scheme of amalgamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"scheme-of-amalgamation-under-companies-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scheme_of_Amalgamation_Under_the_Companies_Act_1956\"><\/span>Scheme of Amalgamation Under the Companies Act, 1956<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The scheme was winding up without dissolution as enshrined under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. It provided for the transfer of undertaking and business of TOMCO to HLL, which also included certain assets and liabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is also essential to mention that the Company Court ratified the scheme while making certain necessary amendments. In distinguished company applications filed by both TOMCO and HLL, the court directed to call for the meeting of the debenture holders, creditors, ordinary shareholders arid preference shareholders on 29th and 30th June, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The companies filed and sent their individual notices and explanatory statement under Section 393(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. Subsequently, a joint communication was also sent to both companies respective shareholders by TOMCO &amp; HLL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"shareholders-meetings-and-voting\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shareholders_Meetings_and_Voting\"><\/span>Shareholders\u2019 Meetings and Voting<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>TOMCO\u2019s extraordinary general meeting was held on 29th June 1993. In the meeting, a said amendment to modify the exchange ratio from 2:15 to 5:15 was denied by 99.64% of the shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The scheme of amalgamation, as initially proposed, was approved by 99.72% of equity shareholders in terms of values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On 30th June 1993, shareholders of HLL at their Extraordinary General Meeting approved by the requisite majority the proposed issue of shares to UL pursuant to Section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956[11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, more than 96% voted against the proposed amendment, and 99% of shareholders voted in favour of the proposed amalgamation scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"independent-examination-of-share-exchange-ratio\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Independent_Examination_of_Share_Exchange_Ratio\"><\/span>Independent Examination of Share Exchange Ratio<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, a prayer by an independent shareholder of examining the proposed share exchange ratio by appointing M\/s. A.F. Ferguson and M\/s. N.M. Raiji &amp; Co. as Chartered Accountants was approved by the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On 6th January 1994, the firms with a joint letter approved the ratio determined by Mr Malegam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Key Event<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>TOMCO Loss (1991-92)<\/td><td>Rs 13 Crores<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Subsequent Loss<\/td><td>Rs 16 Crores in six months<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Recommended Share Exchange Ratio<\/td><td>2 HLL Shares : 15 TOMCO Shares<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>TOMCO Shareholder Approval<\/td><td>99.72% in favour<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Vote Against Amendment<\/td><td>99.64% against change in ratio<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>HLL Shareholder Approval<\/td><td>99% in favour<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"bombay-high-court-and-supreme-court-appeal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Bombay_High_Court_and_Supreme_Court_Appeal\"><\/span>Bombay High Court and Supreme Court Appeal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court, thus finding no intentional discrepancy ratified the scheme of amalgamation of TOMCO &amp; HLL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved by the judgement, five appeals were filed before the Bombay High Court by Federation of Tata Oil Mills and Allied Companies\u2019 Employee\u2019s Unions, Hindustan Lever Employees\u2019 Union, Consumer Action Group and certain shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Dismissing all the five appeals, the High Court was of the view that none of the claims made by the appellants was able to be proved beyond the preponderance of probability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the final judgement passed by the Hon\u2019ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 18th May 1994.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"core-legal-issues-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Legal_Issues_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Core Legal Issues in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It is essential to note that the facts of this case are not in dispute in any court of law. The principal problem here is pertaining to various undetermined legal issues that question the validity of the scheme of amalgamation and the applicability of the sections of the Act thereof[12].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-highlights-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Highlights_of_the_Case\"><\/span>Important Highlights of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>TOMCO suffered severe financial losses leading to consideration of amalgamation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>HLL was selected as the most suitable company for association.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mr Y.H. Malegam determined the share exchange ratio.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The scheme was approved overwhelmingly by shareholders of both companies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Independent Chartered Accountants validated the exchange ratio.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Bombay High Court dismissed all appeals against the amalgamation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The matter was later challenged before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"issues-identified\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_Identified\"><\/span>Issues Identified<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court identified and framed six issues that were to be dealt upon by a Bench of three Judges headed by CJI M.N. Venkatachaliah, Justice R.M. Sahai and Justice S.C. Sen. The issues are:[13]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"share-exchange-ratio-valuation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Share_Exchange_Ratio_Valuation\"><\/span>1. Share Exchange Ratio Valuation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether the valuation of share exchange ratio is under valued and grossly loaded in favour of HLL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"violation-of-companies-act-provisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Violation_of_Sections_391-393_of_the_Companies_Act_1956\"><\/span>2. Violation of Sections 391-393 of the Companies Act, 1956<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether the companies TOMCO &amp; HLL violated Section 391-393 of the Companies Act, 1956 while promulgating the scheme of amalgamation and not making required disclosures in the explanatory statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mrpt-act-procedural-irregularities\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Effect_of_the_Monopolies_and_Restrictive_Trade_Practices_Act_1969\"><\/span>3. Effect of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether the companies ignored the effect of provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 and took undue advantage of procedural irregularities of the provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"preferential-allotment-of-shares\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Preferential_Allotment_of_Shares_to_Unilever_PLC\"><\/span>4. Preferential Allotment of Shares to Unilever PLC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether the preferential allotment of shares less than the market price to Unilever PLC constitute a mala fide interest on account of existence of quid pro quo between companies and held violative of the public interest under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"employee-interest-protection\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Protection_of_Employees_Interests\"><\/span>5. Protection of Employees\u2019 Interests<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether the interest of employees of both TOMCO &amp; HLL was not adequately taken care of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-table-of-issues\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_Table_of_Issues\"><\/span>Summary Table of Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue No.<\/th><th>Issue Identified<\/th><th>Relevant Law\/Provision<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1<\/td><td>Undervaluation of share exchange ratio in favour of HLL<\/td><td>Corporate Valuation Principles<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2<\/td><td>Violation of disclosure requirements during amalgamation<\/td><td>Sections 391-393, Companies Act, 1956<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3<\/td><td>Ignoring MRTP Act provisions and procedural safeguards<\/td><td>MRTP Act, 1969<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>4<\/td><td>Preferential allotment of shares to Unilever PLC<\/td><td>Section 394, Companies Act, 1956<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>5<\/td><td>Failure to adequately protect employees\u2019 interests<\/td><td>Employee Welfare and Public Interest Principles<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-questions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Questions_Raised\"><\/span>Key Legal Questions Raised<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the amalgamation scheme unfairly benefited HLL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether statutory disclosure obligations were properly fulfilled.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the merger violated public interest and competition laws.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether shareholders and employees received adequate protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the preferential share allotment was mala fide in nature.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"share-exchange-ratio-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Share_Exchange_Ratio\"><\/span>Share Exchange Ratio<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>While addressing the first issue, the petitioners argued that the ratio of allotment of 2 shares of HLL in exchange for 15 shares of TOMCO was highly unjustifiable. They alleged that the act of appointment of Mr Malegam as the auditor is violative of Section 226(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>They relied on the Apex Court\u2019s judgement of <em>Commissioner of Gift Tax, Bombay v. Smt. Kusumben Mahadevia<\/em>[14] claimed that the combination of distinguished methods for valuation was against the established law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, it is essential to consider that the petitioners sought an additional valuation report that pointed to a potential discrepancy about TOMCO\u2019s book value in Malegam\u2019s report, demonstrating absurdity in the valuation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-response-to-petitioners-contentions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Response_to_Petitioners_Contentions\"><\/span>Supreme Court Response to Petitioners\u2019 Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court rightly refuted all the above contentions submitted by the appellants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Firstly, it is essential to identify that more than 95% of the shareholders who are the best judge of their interest and well versed with market trends denied the amendment to the ratio and validated for the proposed share exchange ratio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court observed that it is not within the ambit of the judicial process to examine the internal management or institutional operation of public bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cThe court is least equipped for such oversights. Nor, indeed, is it a function of the judges in our constitutional scheme. To inspect the business activity of a public company is incompetent and improper and, therefore, out of bounds.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>The court further relied on <em>Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri &amp; Ors. v. UOI<\/em>[16] and observed that the broad parameters such as fairness in administration, fundamental rules of proper management of public companies shall inevitably remain under the scrutiny of the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This portrays the ability of the court to ease the law\u2019s interpretation and liberate it from ambiguousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"valuation-report-and-book-value-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Valuation_Report_and_Book_Value_Dispute\"><\/span>Valuation Report and Book Value Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While examining an independent chartered accountant report submitted by the petitioners, the court denied the occurrence of any possibility of dispute pertaining to the book value of TOMCO shares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was affirmed that TOMCO suffered a loss of Rs 0.65 Crores in the 1992-93 year and Rs 16 Crores in 1993-94 year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, HLL made a profit of Rs 58.74 Crores in 1990 and Rs 98.48 Crores in 1992, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"financial-performance-comparison\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Financial_Performance_Comparison\"><\/span>Financial Performance Comparison<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Company<\/th><th>Financial Year<\/th><th>Profit\/Loss<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>TOMCO<\/td><td>1992-93<\/td><td>Loss of Rs 0.65 Crores<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>TOMCO<\/td><td>1993-94<\/td><td>Loss of Rs 16 Crores<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>HLL<\/td><td>1990<\/td><td>Profit of Rs 58.74 Crores<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>HLL<\/td><td>1992<\/td><td>Profit of Rs 98.48 Crores<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Henceforth, the contention of the petitioner that TOMCO\u2019s market price as of 17th July 1993 did not reflect the value of the company\u2019s actual picture of shares.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Instead, it was ascertained that different methods of evaluating shares had different outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-on-share-valuation-methods\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_on_Share_Valuation_Methods\"><\/span>Supreme Court on Share Valuation Methods<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of <em>Wealth Tax v. Mahadeo Jain<\/em>[17], the Supreme Court postulated that the shares of the going concern must be taken at estimated market value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, to determine the fair value of the shares, Mr Malegam used a consolidation of three widely established methodologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"methods-used-for-share-valuation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Methods_Used_for_Share_Valuation\"><\/span>Methods Used for Share Valuation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Yield Method<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Asset Value Method<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Market Value Method<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The court dismissed the applicability of the petitioner\u2019s reliance on the Kusumben Mahadevia case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It referred to the book <em>Takeovers and Mergers<\/em>[19] written by Weinberg &amp; Blank, which elucidated that certain factors shall always be considered while concluding a share exchange ratio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, the Apex court observed that all or some valuation methods might be implemented when an exchange ratio of shares is to be fixated in case of amalgamation and upheld the valuation by Mr Malegam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It further held that the book value method is construed as more of a talking point than a matter of substance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"disclosure-of-material-facts-and-jurisdiction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclosure_of_Material_Facts_Jurisdiction\"><\/span>Disclosure of Material Facts &amp; Jurisdiction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>While reciprocating the second issue, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Board of Directors failed to disclose all the material facts in the explanatory statement. They further contended that the companies did not adequately explain the preferential allotment of shares to Unilever PLC in the statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"requirements-under-section-393\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Requirements_Under_Section_3931a\"><\/span>Requirements Under Section 393(1)(a)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 393(1)(a) of the Act specifies specific requisites which shall be compiled with the explanatory statement. Subsequently, Section 391(1) verifies whether the requisite statutory procedure and meeting has been complied with as contemplated in the act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"shareholders-grievance-and-court-observation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shareholders_Grievance_And_Court_Observation\"><\/span>Shareholders\u2019 Grievance And Court Observation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The grievance alarmed by the petitioners is not shared by more than 99% of the shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of <em>Jitendra R. Sukhadia v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.[20]<\/em> the Gujarat High Court observed that it is essential to state the exchange ratio of the shares and the notice of the meeting. However, the method for evaluating this exchange ratio is not a prerequisite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is also of adequate dominance that financial institutions which held 41% of TOMCO shares supported the scheme, and none of the shareholders complained about lack of adequate notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Key Issue<\/th><th>Court\u2019s Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Disclosure of Exchange Ratio<\/td><td>Mandatory to disclose in the notice of meeting<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Method of Valuation<\/td><td>Not compulsory to disclose<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Shareholder Objection<\/td><td>More than 99% shareholders did not object<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Institutional Support<\/td><td>41% TOMCO shareholders supported the scheme<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Henceforth, the court adequately observed that the explanatory statement did not lack any material product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"disclosure-regarding-mr-malegam\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclosure_Regarding_Mr_Malegam\"><\/span>Disclosure Regarding Mr. Malegam<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, the court took a step further when it answered whether the fact that the auditor Mr Malegam was a director of TOMCO, should have been disclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court accurately concluded that this would not amount to any suppression of material interest of the director in the scheme because the exchange ratio derived by him was fair, reasonable &amp; just.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"jurisdiction-of-company-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Jurisdiction_Of_Company_Court\"><\/span>Jurisdiction Of Company Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Another contention raised by the petitioner was whether the High Court of Bombay failed to act as a guardian in company matters by failing to exercise its jurisdiction in important matter of determining share exchange ratio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 392 equips Company Court with the supervisory jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of <em>Re Savoy Hotel Limited[21]<\/em> the Court of Appeals of England &amp; Wales observed that the court has no expertise in verifying the commercial wisdom exercised by majority shareholders of the company in ratifying the scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The SC while developing upon the foreign precedent, postulated that a court while exercising jurisdiction in sanctioning the claim of amalgamation, is not obligated to verify the mathematical accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"scope-of-court-review-in-amalgamation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scope_Of_Court_Review_In_Amalgamation\"><\/span>Scope Of Court Review In Amalgamation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Company Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court does not function as an appellate authority.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Commercial wisdom of majority shareholders is generally respected.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mathematical precision in valuation is not mandatory.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court primarily examines fairness and legality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court thus appropriately upheld the procedure undertaken by the High Court and observed that[22]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cA company court does not exercise an appellate jurisdiction. It exercises a jurisdiction founded on fairness. It is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. What is imperative is that such determination should not have been contrary to law and that it was not unfair for the shareholders of the company which was being merged.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"effect-of-mrtp-act-on-amalgamation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Effect_of_Monopolies_Restrictive_Trade_Practices_Act_1969_MRTP\"><\/span>The Effect of Monopolies &amp; Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>While contending the third issue, the petitioner\u2019s counsel asserted that this issue was already under consideration by the MRTP Commission. Therefore, the court shall not pronounce any order which might prejudice its proceedings. They further claimed that even if the amalgamation is sanctioned, it shall be subjected to outcome of the proceedings before the Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondents alternatively contended that the jurisdiction of the Company Court is parallel to the Commission and not barred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"powers-of-the-mrtp-commission\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Powers_of_the_MRTP_Commission\"><\/span>Powers of the MRTP Commission<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 10 of the Act authorizes the Commission to enquire into any irregular or monopolistic trade practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, Section 12 empowers it to issue a temporary injunction if any company is prima facie practising restrictive trade practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Section<\/th><th>Provision<\/th><th>Purpose<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 10<\/td><td>Power to enquire into monopolistic or restrictive trade practices<\/td><td>Investigate unfair trade practices<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 12<\/td><td>Power to issue temporary injunctions<\/td><td>Prevent restrictive trade practices during proceedings<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"1991-amendment-to-the-mrtp-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1991_Amendment_to_the_MRTP_Act\"><\/span>1991 Amendment to the MRTP Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The MRTP Act was amended in 1991. Sections 20 to 26, which dealt with corporate bodies\u2019 merger and acquisition, were deleted from the act[23].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioners submitted that the Commission refused to pass any interim order on the observation that it would exclude High Court\u2019s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into trade practices even after the deletion of Section 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Sections 20 to 26 were removed from the MRTP Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The deleted provisions previously regulated mergers and acquisitions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The amendment reduced pre-entry restrictions on corporate restructuring.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Commission retained jurisdiction over restrictive trade practices.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reason-behind-the-amendment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reason_Behind_the_Amendment\"><\/span>Reason Behind the Amendment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The amendment was made because the pre-entry restriction by the MRTP Act and the approval of the government before sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation proved to be a gradual hindrance to the speedy implementation of industrial projects[24].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While interpreting the intention of the Central government\u2019s act of amending the act, the court observed that the argument by the petitioner abortive the applicability of Section 23 and the government\u2019s attempt to relax policies for the scheme of merger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-observations-on-merger-approval\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Observations_on_Merger_Approval\"><\/span>Supreme Court Observations on Merger Approval<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Henceforth, the Court rightly disproved the petitioner\u2019s contention and upheld that it is unnecessary to take prior approval from the Central Government or the MRTP Commission before the court sanctions the scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The SC, however, maintained that if a company is acting in mischief of the MRTP Act or detriment to public policy, then the Central Government and Commission shall intervene and act accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, the Apex Court denied mentioning any further comment as the effect of the merger resulting in monopoly was already under the Commission\u2019s scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-takeaways\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Company Court and MRTP Commission have parallel jurisdiction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prior approval from the Central Government is not mandatory before sanctioning amalgamation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The 1991 amendment aimed to encourage faster industrial growth and mergers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The MRTP Commission can still investigate monopolistic and restrictive trade practices.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Public policy and anti-monopoly safeguards remain protected under the law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"public-interest-in-amalgamation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Public_Interest_In_Amalgamation\"><\/span>Public Interest In Amalgamation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court gave thoughtful consideration while verifying upon the contention whether the Company Court addressed the issue of public interest while ratifying the scheme. As explained in Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, the public interest is undoubtedly essential information that might affect the community\u2019s pecuniary interest, legal rights, or liabilities at large[25]. Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 imposes an obligation on the court to verify the scheme\u2019s validity concerning the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of <strong>UOI. v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd<\/strong>[26], the Gujarat High Court observed that an amalgamation or merger scheme ceases to operate when it contradicts the broad and general principle of public interest. The SC promulgated a test with wide amplitude when an Indian company merged with a foreign subsidiary company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"english-law-reference-in-amalgamation-cases\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"English_Law_Reference_In_Amalgamation_Cases\"><\/span>English Law Reference In Amalgamation Cases<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While concluding this issue, the Apex court referred to the English law case of <strong>Custina Re Hoare<\/strong>[27]. In the case of amalgamation of companies, the case postulated that a court needs to verify the scheme\u2019s applicability by imposing the principle of \u2018prudent business management test\u2019, which broadly entailed that the scheme shall not be misused as a device to evade the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While affixing this English law, the court enumerated that the test is not only to maximize shareholders\u2019 profits or safeguard the interest of employees, but it must guarantee that the merger does not impede industrial development or obscure national economic progress. It further observed that[28]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cThe power of the court is to be satisfied only whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with or that the class or classes were fully represented and the arrangement was such as a man of business would reasonably approve between two private companies may be correct and may normally be adhered to but when the merger is with a subsidiary of a foreign company then the economic interest of the country may have to be given precedence.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"shareholding-and-preferential-allotment-controversy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shareholding_And_Preferential_Allotment_Controversy\"><\/span>Shareholding And Preferential Allotment Controversy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While reciprocating the second sub-issue, the petitioners submitted that specific clauses of the scheme were contrary to the public interest. They supported their argument by contending that the merger resulted in a sheer drop of from 51% to 49% in Unilever PLC\u2019s shareholding of HLL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, they were being brought at par by transferring 29,84,43,437 equity shares through preferential allotment while reducing the price from Rs. 366 to Rs. 105 per share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While refuting these allegations, the respondents alleged that the maintenance of 51% of equity shareholding of UL was advantageous to HLL in several ways, including its phenomenal growth and prosperity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondents further claimed that the figure arrived at by the HLL was approved by the Merchant Banking Division of Industrial Credit &amp; Investment Corporation of India Ltd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>They further referred to two principal conditions which were imposed as[29]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Unilever shall not be able to sell the shares allotted to them on a preferential basis for seven years.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In case Unilever decides to sell these shares after the expiry of 7 years. However, 12 years after the date of preferential allotment, they shall sell the shares to the Indian shareholders of Unilever at a price 15 times earning per share calculated based on the last audited balance sheet.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-observations-on-shareholders-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Observations_On_Shareholders_Rights\"><\/span>Supreme Court Observations On Shareholders\u2019 Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While refuting this argument, SC observed that shareholders have no interest in its company\u2019s assets since its existence. It is only after liquidation that they generate interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, Section 82 of the Companies Act, 1956 classifies a share as a movable asset and validates its transferability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While examining the shareholder position, referred to <strong>Bacha F. Guzdar v. C.I.T.<\/strong>[30], the court examined shareholder position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It postulated that a shareholder is entitled to profits and loss of the company once he buys its shares. He is entitled to a share of the company\u2019s assets that are left over after it is dissolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, 99% of the shareholders approved the guidelines of the scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, the court accepted the petitioner\u2019s reliance on the case of <strong>Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newly (India) Holding Ltd.<\/strong>[31] that no legislation essentializes an organization to issue its share at par because they are marketable at a premium price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court further postulated that[32]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cLow pricing of the valuation of share affects the public interest.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>However, SC refused to pursue the issue of undervaluation and preferential allotment of shares. The same issue was pending before the Bombay High Court in a separate proceeding of <strong>Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India<\/strong>[33].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"foreign-investment-and-public-policy-concerns\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Foreign_Investment_And_Public_Policy_Concerns\"><\/span>Foreign Investment And Public Policy Concerns<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>While contending the last sub-issue, the petitioners claimed that HLL and TOMCO occupied a considerable share of the market in their business. After the amalgamation, the company that will come into existence will occupy a considerable market share.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, a foreign company will have a controlling interest in HLL, which is strictly violative of the public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court diverted its attention to the Directive Principles of State policies enshrined in the Constitution of India, which stipulated that the economic system should not be administered in such a way that wealth and means of production are concentrated in the hands of an individual entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Initially, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) administered the issues pertaining to foreign investments in Indian companies. However, in 1993 Section 11 &amp; 29 of the Act were repealed through an amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the Needle Industries case, the court, while interpreting the object of Section 29 of the act, observed that it had an objective of imposing a bar on the non-resident interest not exceeding 40%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Henceforth, this was done to attract foreign investments and therefore cannot be constituted ultra vires of public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the court did not fail to impose continuing supervision on the activities of the organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-principles-on-public-interest-in-amalgamation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_On_Public_Interest_In_Amalgamation\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles On Public Interest In Amalgamation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Explanation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Public Interest Test<\/td><td>Courts must ensure that amalgamation schemes do not harm public interest or economic welfare.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Prudent Business Management Test<\/td><td>Merger schemes should not be used to evade legal obligations or public policy.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Shareholder Rights<\/td><td>Shareholders are entitled to profits, losses, and residual assets upon dissolution.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Foreign Investment Regulation<\/td><td>Indian law permitted increased foreign investment to encourage economic growth.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Supervision<\/td><td>Courts retain supervisory powers to prevent misuse of amalgamation schemes.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"interest-of-the-employees\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interest_of_the_Employees\"><\/span>Interest of the Employees<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Clause 11.1 of the scheme details that every employee and worker of TOMCO shall become an employee of HLL after amalgamation<sup>[34]<\/sup>. The petitioners claimed that the scheme would adversely affect them as there is no assurance on TOMCO that the workers of their company would never be retrenched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court dismisses the arguments put forth by the petitioner. It observed that the scheme is responsible for safeguarding the interest of employees by providing them favourable terms and conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-on-protection-of-workers\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_on_Protection_of_Workers\"><\/span>Supreme Court on Protection of Workers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court accurately affirmed that even if such a retrenchment eventuality exists, the Labour Court possess the authority to safeguard employees&#8217; interests. Subsequently, a scheme of amalgamation cannot be rejected merely on speculation about what might happen in the mere future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court further observed that<sup>[35]<\/sup>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Anxiety should be to protect workers and not obstruct development and growth. Maybe that advanced technology may reduce the workforce, but so long those who are working are protected they are not entitled to hinder in modernisation or merger under the misapprehension that future employment of a same number of workers may stand curtailed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"wage-disparity-between-hll-and-tomco-employees\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wage_Disparity_Between_HLL_and_TOMCO_Employees\"><\/span>Wage Disparity Between HLL and TOMCO Employees<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, petitioners asserted a prodigious discrepancy amongst the terms and conditions provided to HLL workers and TOMCO workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While disproving this argument, the court held that the wage difference between employees of two companies could not make the merger unfair. Subsequently, the service conditions of TOMCO employees were protected, and they cannot claim that the merger was unjust solely because HLL employees are being underpaid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-findings-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Key Findings of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Employees and workers of TOMCO would become employees of HLL after amalgamation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The scheme aimed to safeguard employee interests through favourable service conditions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Labour Court retains authority to protect workers in case of retrenchment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A merger cannot be rejected based on speculative future concerns.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Differences in wages between employees of two companies do not automatically make an amalgamation unfair.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"critical-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Critical_Analysis\"><\/span>Critical Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It is apprehensible that such a mere issue could not disqualify an amalgamation. However, the Apex Court failed in its duty to provide equal wages and terms and conditions to employees who operate within the same organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court\u2019s Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Employee Protection<\/td><td>The scheme safeguards workers through favourable terms and conditions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Retrenchment Concerns<\/td><td>Labour Courts can protect employees if retrenchment occurs.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Future Speculation<\/td><td>Possible future events cannot invalidate an amalgamation scheme.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Wage Disparity<\/td><td>Different wage structures between companies do not make the merger unjust.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of <em>Hindustan Lever Employees\u2019 Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.<\/em> dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. It upheld the judgement dated 18th May 1994 by the Single Bench of the High Court of Bombay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement of SC is written by Justice S.C. Sen, to which Justice R.M. Sahai wrote a concurring judgement. The Supreme Court was accurate in negating all the issues presented before it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-restraint-and-business-decisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Restraint_and_Internal_Business_Decisions\"><\/span>Judicial Restraint and Internal Business Decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In the first issue, the Apex Court, while clarifying its judicial authority, rightly restrained itself from examining internal business activities which majority shareholders accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recognized the autonomy of majority shareholders in corporate decisions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Restricted unnecessary judicial interference in internal business affairs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Clarified the extent of judicial review in corporate restructuring matters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, it derived a modern method of evaluating accurate share exchange ratio. It further detailed the scope of interpretation of sections of Companies Act involving mergers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"company-courts-jurisdiction-in-mergers\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Company_Courts_Jurisdiction_in_Merger_Cases\"><\/span>Company Courts&#8217; Jurisdiction in Merger Cases<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, it affirmed Company Courts&#8217; jurisdiction while dealing with the cases of merger and amalgamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Supreme Court Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Share Exchange Ratio<\/td><td>Accepted a modern method for evaluating fairness.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Review<\/td><td>Limited interference in shareholder-approved business decisions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Company Court Jurisdiction<\/td><td>Confirmed authority in merger and amalgamation matters.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>MRTP Interpretation<\/td><td>Clarified legislative intent and scope of MRTP Commission.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Employee Interest<\/td><td>Held that no employee interest was adversely affected.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"mrtp-act-and-legislative-intent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"MRTP_Act_and_Legislative_Intent\"><\/span>MRTP Act and Legislative Intent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The third issue was rightly disposed of by Supreme Court as it explained the government&#8217;s intention behind amending the Act and detailed the purview of the MRTP Commissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court precisely dismissed the fifth issue and held that there was no interest of employees, which was curtailed by the scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"public-interest-and-cross-border-mergers\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Public_Interest_and_Cross-Border_Mergers\"><\/span>Public Interest and Cross-Border Mergers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This brings us to the main issue, i.e. whether the scheme of amalgamation breached public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court, while analyzing the jurisdiction in case of cross-border mergers, added a new ground for review of such a scheme on the ground of public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, in cases involving a foreign element in the scheme, the Court gave a broader interpretation to the phrase <strong>&#8216;public interest&#8217;<\/strong> by including the country&#8217;s economic interest within it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"impact-on-future-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impact_on_Future_Judgments\"><\/span>Impact on Future Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, a division bench of the Supreme Court in <em>Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.<\/em>[36] relied on the principle mentioned above of public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The 1990s was the period when the nation underwent an extravagant and complex breakthrough in economy. The Supreme Court rightly performed its duty of safeguarding the nation&#8217;s interest while adequately implementing the Economic Liberalization Policies of 1991.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Strengthened economic liberalization reforms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Encouraged foreign investment and corporate restructuring.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Balanced public interest with corporate growth.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Created guiding principles for future merger cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The government&#8217;s policies and the implementation and encouragement by the Apex Court transformed India into a giant hub of goods and service market for other countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"continuing-relevance-of-the-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Continuing_Relevance_of_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Continuing Relevance of the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Although various statutes such as the Companies Act 1956 is replaced by the Companies Act 2013, MRTP Act 1969 is replaced by Competition Act 2002. Nonetheless, the judgment still upholds its validity and disseminates knowledge on a company&#8217;s obligations while restructuring an organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently, the SC in another landmark judgment of <em>63 Moons Technologies Ltd. &amp; Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) &amp; Ors.<\/em>[37] discussed and relied on the principles of evaluating share exchange ratio, Company Court&#8217;s jurisdiction and the public interest, promulgated in the Hindustan Lever case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-observations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Observations\"><\/span>Final Observations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>To conclude, it could be asserted that the Supreme Court, while observing this case, laid down a healthy precedent that was referred to in numerous cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mere precedents occupy as an intimidating source of jurisdiction, and as Junius, the renowned writer of the 18th Century, postulated that[38]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;One precedent creates another, and they soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was a fact, today is a doctrine.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>End-Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>V. Venkata Rao, &#8216;Socialist Thought of Jawaharlal Nehru&#8217; (2004) 48 The Indian Journal of Political Science.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>C.P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh, <em>The Market That Failed: Neoliberal Economic Reforms In India<\/em> (2nd edn, Leftword 2002).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8216;ICSI &#8211; Corporate Laws&#8217; (ICSI, 2021)<br>URL: https:\/\/www.icsi.edu\/ccgrt\/research\/bare-acts\/corporate-laws\/<br>Accessed 27 May 2021.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Amol Agrawal, &#8216;Why Indira Gandhi Nationalised India\u2019s Banks&#8217; (2019) 1 Bloomberg<br>URL: https:\/\/www.bloombergquint.com\/opinion\/why-indira-gandhi-nationalised-indias-banks<br>Accessed 27 May 2021.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pranab Mukherjee, &#8216;Pranab Mukherjee: How We Repaid The IMF Loan&#8217; (Business-standard.com, 2013)<br>URL: https:\/\/www.business-standard.com\/article\/opinion\/pranab-mukherjee-how-we-repaid-the-imf-loan-108022901035_1.html<br>Accessed 27 May 2021.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>S. Venkatanarayanan, &#8216;Economic Liberalization In 1991 And Its Impact On Elementary Education In India&#8217; (2015) 5 SAGE Journals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(1994) 7 SCL 172 (Bom)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1992 74 CompCas 290 Kar<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>93CWN542<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 8<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ibid; Para. 29<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ibid; Para. 2, 19, 20<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1980 AIR 769<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 3<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1981 AIR 344<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 26<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ibid; Para. 40<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>M. A Weinberg and Blank, <em>Takeovers And Mergers<\/em> (1st edn, Sweet &amp; Maxwell Ltd 1979).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(1987) 3 Comp LJ 141<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>[1981] Ch 351<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 3<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Act 058 Of 1991 : Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices (Amendment) Act, 1991<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>J. C. Sandesara, &#8216;Restrictive Trade Practices In India, 1969-91&#8217; (1994) 29 Economic and Political Weekly.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Henry Campbell Black, <em>Black&#8217;s Law Dictionary<\/em> (West Pub Co 1951).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1984 147 ITR 294 Guj<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1933 AER Ch. 105<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 6<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ibid; Para. 49<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1955 AIR 740<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1981 AIR 1298<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 13<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Writ petition No. 1666 of 1994.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1995 SC 470; Para. 81<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ibid; Para. 4<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AIR 1997 SC 506<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>[2019] 217 Comp Cas 181 (SC)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Abraham Blanding, Volume 1 The Carolina Law Journal p. 58 (1831).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction After independence, India as a nation adopted and implemented mixed economic policies, which were carried out within the framework of multi-party democracy. The first Prime Minister of India, Mr Jawaharlal Nehru, explicitly acclaimed his socialist view towards the Nation and its economy[1]. The government allowed private institutions to portray an essential role in Nation\u2019s<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1464,"featured_media":23784,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[918,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-23781","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-company-law","8":"tag-company-law","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/hindustan-lever-employees-union-vs-hindustan-lever-amalgamation.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23781","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1464"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23781"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23781\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23785,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23781\/revisions\/23785"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23784"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}