Allowed

Konark Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ----------------------------

Bombay HC30 Sept 2010CSP/297/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court made Company Scheme Petitions 295, 296, and 297 of 2010 absolute for the amalgamation of two transferor companies with a transferee company. The Court accepted undertakings for statutory compliance and the Official Liquidator's report.

What did the court decide?

Company Scheme Petitions 295, 296, and 297 of 2010 were made absolute in terms of the prayer clauses.

Konark Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 295 OF 2010.

¶3

CONNECTED WITH

¶4

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 274 OF 2010 VIDHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

…………Petitioner / First Transferor Company.

¶6

AND

¶7

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 296 OF 2010. CONNECTED WITH

¶8

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 275 OF 2010 MANOKAMNA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶9

……Petitioner / Second Transferor Company.

¶10

WITH

¶11

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 297 OF 2010.

¶12

CONNECTED WITH

¶13

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 276 OF 2010 KONARK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶14

………..Petitioner / Transferee Company.

¶15

In the matter of the Companies Act 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 VIDHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED and MANOKAMNA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED with KONARK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

Dr. T. Pandian, Dy. Official Liquidator, present

¶24

CORAM: S. J. Kathawalla, J.

¶25

DATE: 30^th September, 2010.

¶26

PC:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The sanction of the Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the Scheme of Amalgamation of VIDHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED and MANOKAMNA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED with KONARK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED.

¶29

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that they have complied with all requirements as per directions of this Court and they have filed necessary affidavits of compliance in the Court. Moreover, Petitioner Companies undertake to comply with all statutory requirements, if any, as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules made there under. The undertaking is accepted.

¶30

The Regional Director has filed an Affidavit stating therein that the Scheme is not appear to be prejudicial to the interest of shareholders and public.

¶31

The Official Liquidator has filed a report stating that the affairs of the Transferor Companies have been conducted in a proper manner and that the Transferor Companies may be ordered to be dissolved.

¶32

From the material on record, the Scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to public policy. None of the parties concerned have come forward to oppose the Scheme.

¶33

¶34

Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, Company Scheme Petition Nos. 295 of 2010 and 296 of 2010 filed by the Transferor Companies are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (j) and Company Scheme Petition No. 297 of 2010 filed by the Transferee Company is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (i).

¶35

The Petitioner Company to lodge a copy of this order and the Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar High Court, (O.S.) Bombay, with the concerned Superintendent of Stamps for the purpose of adjudication of stamp duty payable, if any, on the same within 60 days from the date of the order.

¶36

The Petitioner Companies in both Petitions to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the Regional Director, Western Region, Mumbai and the Petitioner Company in the Company Scheme Petition Nos. 295 of 2010 and 296 of 2010 to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay. Costs to be paid within four weeks from today.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(S. J. Kathawalla, J.)

Konark Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ----------------------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konark Builders and Developers 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

The Liquidator, Orkay'S Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited (in Liquidation)--Appl Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. ORKAy'S Industries Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Siddharth College of Arts, Science and Commerce and 3 Ors. Vs Nandkishore S. Chandan and 2 Ors.

M/S. C.D. Security Services Network Ltd. ----Applicant. Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Enarai Finance Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Manokamna Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs ----------------------------

Virgo Valves and Controls Limited Vs ----------------------------

M/S. Sowil Ltd. Vs Unity Infraprojects Ltd.