"There have been occasions when shareholders holding miniscule shareholdings have made frivolous objections against the restructuring scheme, just with the objective of stalling or deferring the implementation of the sch

There have however been some instances when shareholders holding a small number of shares, have made frivolous objections against the scheme, just with the objective of deferring the implementation of the scheme. The courts have, on a number of occasions, overruled their objections. But Companies had to bear the consequences in the form of time and cost over-runs. In case of Parke-Davis India Limited In 2003, Parke-Davis India Limited and Pfizer Limited were considering implementation of a Scheme of Merger. The Minority shareholders of Parke-Davis India Ltd objected to the Scheme on the grounds that the approval from the requisite majority as prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956 had not been obtained. They filed an urgent petition before the division bench of the Bombay High Court. The division bench of the Bombay High Court by its order executed a stay order in March 2003 restraining the company from taking further steps in the implementation of the scheme of amalgamation, which was further extended till September 2003. The dissenting shareholders filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court. The turmoil came to an end when the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the shareholders. Parke-Davis then proceeded to complete the implementation of the scheme of amalgamation with Pfizer. In case of Tomco with HLL Merger Similarly, in the case of the merger of Tomco with HLL, the minority shareholders put forward an argument that, as a result of the amalgamation, a large share of the market would be captured by HLL. However, the court turned down the argument and observed that there was nothing unlawful or illegal about it.