Allowed

Mhd Secutities Limited v. -------------------------------------- - ----------------

Bombay HC5 Sept 2008CP/522/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a petition for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between MHD Securities Limited and H. J. Securities Private Limited under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act 1956. The Court found the scheme fair and compliant, with no opposition recorded, and made both petitions absolute.

What did the court decide?

Company Petition No. 522 of 2008 and Company Petition No. 523 of 2008 were made absolute; orders to lodge copy for stamp duty adjudication and pay costs of Rs. 7,500 each were issued.

Mhd Secutities Limited Vs… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

COMPANY PETITION NO. 522 OF 2008

¶4

CONNECTED WITH

¶5

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 650 OF 2008

¶6

MHD SECURITIES LIMITED

…………Petitione r /

Transferor Company.

WITH

COMPANY PETITION NO. 523 OF 2008

¶11

CONNECTED WITH

¶12

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 651 OF 2008

¶13

H. J. SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED …………. Petitioner /

¶14

Transferee Company.

¶15

In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

¶16

AND

¶17

In the matter of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶18

AND

¶19

In the matter of Scheme of Amalgamation of MHD SECURITIES LIMITED with H. J. SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED .

¶20

Mr. Rajesh Shah i/b Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶21

Mr. S. Ramakantha Dy. Official Liquidator in CP No. 522 of 2008.

¶22

Mr. C. J. Joy i/b Mr. S.K. Mohapatra for Regional Director in both Petitions.

¶23

CORAM: S. A. BOBDE, J.

¶24

DATE : 5^th SEPTEMBER, 2008

¶25

PC:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The sanction of the Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the Scheme of Amalgamation of MHD SECURITIES LIMITED with H. J. SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED .

¶28

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has stated that they have complied with all requirements as per directions of this Court and they have filed necessary affidavits of compliance in the Court. However, Petitioner Companies also undertake to comply with all statutory requirements, if any, as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the rules made there under.

¶29

The Regional Director has filed Affidavit stating therein that the scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of creditors, shareholders and public.

¶30

The Official Liquidator has filed report in Company Petition No.422 of 2008 stating therein that the affairs of the Transferor Company have been conducted in a proper manner and that the Transferor Company may be ordered to be dissolved

¶31

Upon perusal of the entire material placed on record, 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 has come forward to oppose the Scheme.

¶32

There is no objection to the Scheme and since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, Company Petition No. 522 of 2008 filed by the Transferor Company is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (j) and Company Petition No. 523 of 2008 filed by the Transferee Company is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (i).

¶33

The Petitioner Companies 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 of obtaining the certified copy and/or an authenticated copy of the order.

¶34

The Petitioners in both the Company Petitions to pay cost of Rs.7,500/- each to the Regional Director in both the Petitions and to the Official Liquidator by the Petitioner in the Company Petition No. 522 of 2008 filed by the Transferor Company. Costs to be paid within four weeks from today.

¶35

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

¶36

All authorities concerned to act on a copy of this order along with Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court, Bombay.

Mhd Secutities Limited v. -------------------------------------- - ----------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mhd Secutities Limited 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

Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Formerly Known as Monnet Ispat Ltd. Vs Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Limited

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. Vs Sriman Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.

Shri Manoj Shah Manager of M/S Sayona Pruthvi Developers Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S Prithvi Cotton Millls Ltd. (in Liqn)

Eastern International Hotels Limited Vs Vijay Arora and Anr.

Vijay Arora and Anr. Vs Eastern International Hotels Ltd.

H.J. Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs -------------------------------------- - ----------------