Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Mar 2012
- Bench
- S KATHAWALLA
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 ss. 391, 394
Judgment
Ms. Deepti Nagpal, Advocate i/b M/s. Kanga and Company, Advocates for the Applicant MINUTES OF ORDER Upon the application of the Applicant Company abovenamed by a Summons for Direction AND UPON HEARING Ms. Deepti Nagpal, Advocate instructed by Kanga and Company, Advocates for the Applicant Company, AND UPON READING the Affidavit dated 9th day of January 2012 of Mr. Amit K. Shah, Director of the Applicant 2 Company, in Support of the Summons for Direction and the Exhibits therein referred to, IT IS ORDERED :-
That convening and holding of the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company, to consider and approve the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the SKM Alloys Private Limited, SKM Metal Processors Private Limited and SKM Industries Private Limited, the Transferor Companies with SKM Steels Limited, the Transferee Company is dispensed with in view of the consents given by both the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company which are annexed as Exhibits - “C-1” and “C – 2” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction.
There are no Secured or Sundry Creditors in the Applicant Company as stated in paragraph 27 of the Affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction. Hence, the question of convening and holding the meeting of Secured and Sundry Creditors does not arise.
That the convening and holding of the meeting of the Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Company to consider and approve the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of SKM Alloys Private Limited, SKM Metal Processors Private Limited and SKM Industries Private Limited, the Transferor Companies with 3 SKM Steels Limited, the Transferee Company is dispensed with in view of the consent given by the sole Unsecured Creditor of the Applicant Company which is annexed as Exhibit “E-1” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction. (S. J. Kathawalla, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 391, 394.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Mar 2012. The bench was S KATHAWALLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.