Allowed

Mansanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ---------------------------------------------

Bombay HC25 Jul 2008CP/245/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the Scheme of Amalgamation of Parry Monsanto Seeds Private Limited with Monsanto Holdings Private Limited, the court held that the scheme is fair and reasonable, statutory compliances were met, and granted the petition. The sanction is subject to orders by the Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

Company Petition No.245 of 2008 is made absolute with respect to the scheme of amalgamation. Petitioner to deposit costs of Rs.7500/- to Regional Director.

Mansanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 COMPANY PETITION NO.245 OF 2008

¶5

 CONNECTED WITH

¶6

 COMPANY APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2008

¶7

 In the matter of the Companies Act,

¶8

 1956;

¶9

And

¶10

 In the matter of Sections 391 to 394

¶11

 of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶12

And

¶13

 In the matter of Monsanto Holdings

¶14

 Private Limited

¶15

And

¶16

 In the matter of the Scheme of

¶17

 Amalgamation of Parry Monsanto Seeds

¶18

 Private Limited

¶19

 With

¶20

 Monsanto Holdings Private Limited

¶21

 Monsanto Holdings Private Limited ...PETITIONER

¶22

 Mr.Sumit Raghani i/b. PDS Legal for the Petitioner.

¶23

 Mr.S.Ramakantha, Dy. Official Liquidator present.

¶24

 Mr.C.J.Joy i/b. S.K.Mohapatra, for Regional Director.

¶25

 -: 2 :-

¶26

 Coram : S.A. Bobde, J.

¶27

 Date : 25th July, 2008.

¶28

 P.C.

¶29

 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶30

 2. The sanction of the Court is sought under sections
 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the Scheme of
 Amalgamation of Parry Monsanto Seeds Private Limited with
 Monsanto Holdings Private Limited.

¶31

 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Company
 stated that they have complied with all statutory
 requirements as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court
 and they have filed necessary affidavit of compliance in
 the Court. Moreover, Petitioner Company also undertakes
 to comply with all statutory requirements, if any, as
 required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the rules made
 thereunder.

¶32

 4. The Regional Director has filed Affidavit stating
 therein that the scheme is not prejudicial to the
 interest of the Shareholders, Creditors and General
 Public.

¶33

 -: 3 :-

¶34

 5. Upon perusal of the entire material on records, the
 scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not
 violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to
 any public policy. None of the parties concerned have
 come forward to oppose the scheme. Moreover, the
 Regional Director has stated that the scheme as prepared
 is not prejudicial to the interest of shareholder and
 public.

¶35

 6. Since the requisite statutory compliances have been
 fulfilled, Company Petition No.245 of 2008 filed by the
 Petitioner Company/Transferee Company is made absolute in
 terms of prayer clause (a) to (f). However the same is
 subject to the orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
 at Bangalore, in Company Petition No.20 of 2008 filed by
 Parry Monsanto Seeds Private Limited, the Transferor
 Company.

¶36

 7. The Petitioner Company to lodge a copy of this order
 and the scheme with the concerned Superintendent of
 Stamps for the purpose of adjudication of stamp duty
 payable, if any, on the same within 30 days from
 obtaining the certified copy and/or authenticated copy of
 the order.

¶37

 8. The Petitioner to pay costs of Rs.7500/- to the

¶38

 -: 4 :-

¶39

 Regional Director. Costs to be paid within four weeks

¶40

 from today.

¶41

 9. Filing and issuance of the drawn up order is
 dispensed with.

¶42

 10. All authorities concerned to act on a copy of this
 order alongwith the scheme duly authenticated by the
 Company Registrar.

¶43

 Company Judge

Mansanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ---------------------------------------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 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

Messrs Subham Fabrics Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of High Court, Bombay and 3 Ors. Krishnakumar Karnani

Nsk Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dirk India Pvt.Ltd.

Lavina Estates Private Limited Vs M/S. Sdr Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Shantilal Gangar Partner of M/S. Shilpa Textiles Vs M/S. Modern Mills Ltd.

Kjmc Financial Services Ltd. Vs ---------------------------------------------

M/S. Western India Shipyard Limited Vs M/S. Saurashtra Fuels (P) Limited