Disposed

Rasiklal Mardia and Ors. v. ---------------------------------------------

Bombay HC27 Jun 2008CA/830/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted directions to convene a meeting of secured creditors for a company in liquidation. It dispensed with the procedure under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and allowed the applicant to pass a special resolution, keeping contentions regarding the scheme's validity open.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to convene a meeting of secured creditors, dispensing with procedure under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Rasiklal Mardia and Ors. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

 Company application No. 830 of 2008

¶3

 In the matter of Scheme of Arrangement
 between Amar Dye Chem Limited
 (Company under Liquidation)

¶4

 Rasiklal Mardia ..Applicant

¶5

 Mr.D.P.Desai for applicant.

¶6

 Mr.S.H.Doctor with Mr.B.B.Parekh for Sunstar Estate
 Developers Pvt.Ltd.

¶7

 Mr.S.Ramakanta, Dy.O.L. present.

¶8

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARIJ.
27th June 2008

¶9

P.C.

¶10

 1. Company Application no. 830 of 2008 is placed before

¶11

 me for directions and Mr.Desai appearing for the

¶12

 applicant/ex-director-Chairman of the Company in

¶13

 liquidation prays that appropriate directions be issued
 enabling the applicant to convene the meeting of the

¶14

 secured creditors and unsecured creditors. Further, he
 hands over the minutes which propose to convene a meeting

¶15

 of equity share holders and preferential share holders of

¶16

 the company in liquidation with clear notice of 21 days

¶17

 which would be published in the newspapers daily
 circulated in Mumbai. The name of the Chairman is also

¶18

 set out together with firms and other requisites enabling

¶19

 voting of proxy. Mr.Rasiklal Mardia the applicant has
 filed the affidavit and additional affidavit in support of
 the summons setting out the fact that the reduction of

¶20

 paid up share capital would be effected as part of the
 scheme of amalgamation and the same issue does not involve
 the diminution of liability or unpaid share capital or
 paid up capital. For all these reasons procedure
 prescribed under sec.101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be
 dispensed with. Further he has given an undertaking that
 the company will pass the special Resolution in the extra
 ordinary General body meeting of its share holders, before
 filing the petition for sanction.

¶21

 2. Mr.Doctor, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of
 the debenture holder submtis that the applicant/ objector
 Mr.Rakesh Mardia is 1/3rd debenture holder and this fact
 is mentioned in the suit filed by the Applicant in the
 City Civil Court at Ahmedabad.

¶22

 3. Mr.Desai appearing for the applicant submits that the
 request is with regard to convening of meeting of the
 debenture holders but the objector can very well attend
 the meeting of the secured creditors which is to be
 convened after the directions are given by this Court. At
 that meeting, the objector can raise all issues including
 that a separate meeting needs to be convened of the
 debenture holders or Trustees. At this stage, when the
 litigation is still pending, and objector has stated
 therein that he would not act as a trustee, then,he cannot
 hold up the request for seeking directions to convene the

¶23

 meeting.

¶24

 4. In my view, the controversy between the objector who
 seeks to intervene and the applicant, is pending before
 the competent Court. There is no question of this Court
 going into the please raised therein, leave alone deciding
 them without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
 the applicant as well as objector and upon statement by
 the applicant before me that due notice of the meeting of
 the secured creditors would be given also to the
 Intenvenor and he would be permitted to attend the same,
 subject ofcourse to the pendig litigation that i do not
 see any reason for denying the request of the applicant.
 . It is on the above basis that I am approving the
 minutes which are placed before me. All contentions of
 the parties with regard to the legality and validity of

¶25

 the scheme and its status are kept open.

¶26

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Rasiklal Mardia and Ors. v. ---------------------------------------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasiklal Mardia and Ors. v. ---------------------------------------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Mahadev Dhole Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. (Midc), Ahmednagar

Garware Employees Union Vs O.L.of Garware Nylons LTDand Ors.

Jay Electric Wire Corporation Employees Union Vs Industrial Coil Services and Ors.

m/s jiangtsu gouai international group hua tai import and export company limited Vs m/s manav drugs Pvt. Ltd.

Ispl Industries Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------

Adit Overseas Vs Silver Wing Investments andTRADING Co.P.Ltd.