Judgment · High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 01 Jul 2011
- Bench
- S KATHAWALLA
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 ss. 391, 394
Judgment
Mr. Rajesh Shah i/b M/s. Rajesh Shah & Co., Advocate for the Applicant MINUTES OF THE ORDER UPON the application of the Applicant Company abovenamed by a Summons for Direction AND UPON HEARING Mr. Rajesh Shah instructed by M/s. Rajesh Shah & Co., Advocate for the Applicant Company, AND UPON READING the 2 Affidavit dated 16th May, 2011 of Mr. Ajay D. Sarupriya, Authorised Signatory of the Applicant Company, in support of the Summons for Direction and the Exhibits therein referred to, IT IS ORDERED:-
That the convening and holding the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company to consider and approve the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of SILGO PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, The First Transferor Company and SILGO FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, The Applicant / Second Transferor Company and DEEKAY FINEX AND TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED, The Third Transferor Company with SAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE 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.
That there are no Secured Creditors of the Applicant Company as stated in paragraph 25 of the Affidavit in support of Summons for Direction. Hence, the question of convening and holding the meetings of Secured 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 SILGO PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, The First Transferor Company and SILGO FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, The Applicant / Second Transferor Company and DEEKAY 3 FINEX AND TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED, The Third Transferor Company with SAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, The Transferee Company is dispensed with in view of the consents given by all the Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Company, which are annexed as Exhibits “D-1” to “D-4” 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 01 Jul 2011. 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.