Disposed

Pid Private Limited Vs

Bombay HC9 Mar 2012CSD/148/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a summons for direction dispensing with shareholder and creditor meetings for a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allows the applicant to proceed based on written consents provided by all equity shareholders, secured creditors, and unsecured creditors. It notes the absence of preference shareholders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispense with meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors, and unsecured/sundry creditors, and to proceed with the scheme based on their written consents; noted absence of preferen

Pid Private Limited Vs — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY SCHEME FOR DIRECTION NO. 148 OF 2012

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶6

AND

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 391 AND 394 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶8

AND

¶9

IN THE MATTER OF PID PRIVATE LIMITED

¶10

AND

¶11

IN THE MATTER OF SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PID PRIVATE LIMITED WITH FILMLAB(I) PRIVATE LIMITED

¶12

PID PRIVATE LIMITED )

¶13

A company duly incorporated under the )

¶14

Companies Act,1956 and having its registered )

¶15

Office at Filmlab, 27,Walbhat Road, )

¶16

Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 ).. APPLICANT

¶17

¶18

Called Summons For Direction

¶19

Coram: S. J. KATHAWALLA J.

¶20

Date : 9^th March, 2012

¶21

Mr.Nimish G. Pandya i/b Pandya & Co , Advocates for Applicant

¶22

MINUTES OF ORDER

¶23

Upon the Application of the Applicant Company abovenamed i.e. PID PRIVATE LIMITED, by a Summons for Direction AND UPON HEARING MR NIMISH G. PANDYA i/b PANDYA & CO, Advocate for the Applicant Company AND UPON READING the Affidavit dated 13^th day of February, .2012 of Mr. Devendra S. Varma, the Company Secretary of the Applicant Company in support of the Summons For Direction and the Exhibits thereto referred to , IT IS ORDERED :

¶24

That convening and holding the meeting of the Equity

¶25

Shareholders of the Applicant Company, for the purpose of considering, if thought fit, and approving, with or without

¶26

¶27

modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between PID PRIVATE LIMITED the Transferor Company/Applicant Company AND FILMLAB (I) PRIVATE LIMITED the Transferee Company is dispensed with in view of the consents in writing given by all the Equity Shareholders, which are annexed as Exhibits “D-1 to D-3” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons For Direction.

¶28

There are no Preference Shareholders of PID PRIVATE LIMITED, the Applicant Company as stated in Paragraph No. 33 of the Affidavit in Support of Summons For Direction. Hence, the question of convening and holding the meeting of Preference Shareholders does not arise.

¶29

That convening and holding the meeting of the Secured Creditors of the Applicant company, for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between PID PRIVATE LIMITED the Transferor Company/Applicant Company and FILMLAB (I) PRIVATE LIMITED the Transferee Company is dispensed with in view of the consents in writing given by all the Secured Creditors which are annexed as Exhibits “F-1 to F-4” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons For Direction.

¶30

¶31

That convening and holding the meeting of the Unsecured and

¶32

Sundry Creditors of the Applicant company, for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between PID PRIVATE LIMITED the Transferor Company/Applicant Company and FILMLAB (I) PRIVATE LIMITED the Transferee Company is dispensed with in view of the consents in writing given by all the Unsecured and Sundry Creditors which are annexed as Exhibits “H-1 to H-14” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons For Direction.

Pid Private Limited Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pid Private Limited Vs

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

Dinesh D. Jain. Vs Vishnukant Dhanraj Maheshwari @ Vishnukant Dhanraj Rathi

,R. Arvind M. Makavana Vs Jitesh Pranlal Sheth

Ecokrin Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ecolab Foods Safety and Hygiene Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Cinemax India Limited Vs

Cinemax Exhibition India Limited Vs

Legrand (India) Private Liited Vs