Partly allowed

Mandakini Investfin Private Limited Vs

Bombay HC22 Mar 2012CSD/179/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Mumbai considered a summons for direction regarding a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956. The court dispensed with the requirement to convene meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors, and unsecured creditors due to written consents obtained from all relevant parties, exempting the company from further procedural formalities for approval.

What did the court decide?

The court dispensed with the convening and holding of meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors, and unsecured creditors.

Mandakini Investfin Private Limited Vs — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO.179 OF 2012

¶4

In the matter of Companies Act, 1956 And In the matter of Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 And In the matter of Scheme of Arrangement Between Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited, (the Transferor Company) And Mandakini Investfin Private Limited, (formerly known as Brim Builders Private Limited) (Transferee Company) And their respective Shareholders.

¶5

MANDAKINI INVESTFIN PRIVATE LIMITED ) (Formerly known as Brim Builders Private ) Limited) a Company incorporated under the ) provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and ) having its Registered office at Raaj Chambers, ) SKM Fabrics, Andheri Premises , Plot No. 115, ) 115/IT-03, R.K. Paramhans Marg, Andheri ( E),) Mumbai :400069. )

¶6

… APPLICANT/TRANSFEREE COMPANY

¶7

¶8

¶9

Called Summons for Direction

¶10

CORAM: S. J. KATHAWALLA J

¶11

Dated: 22^nd March, 2012

¶12

Mrs. Madhuri Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicant Company

¶13

MINUTES OF THE ORDER

¶14

UPON the Application of the Applicant abovenamed by a Summons for Direction, AND UPON hearing Mrs. Madhuri Gaikwad, Advocate for the Applicant and UPON reading the Affidavit dated 27^th February, 2012 of Mr. Ramvilas Yadav, Director of the Applicant Company in support of the Summons for Direction, and the Exhibits therein referred to IT IS ORDERED-:

¶15

That the convening and holding the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company, for the purpose of considering, and, if thought fit, approving, with or without modification the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited with Mandakini Investfin Private Ltd. and their respective shareholders, is dispensed with in view of the consents in writing given by both the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company which are annexed as Exhibits “F-1” and “F-2” to the Affidavit in support of Summons for Direction.

¶16

There are no Secured Creditors of the Applicant Company as stated in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit in Support for Summons

¶17

¶18

¶19

for Direction. Hence, the question of convening and holding of the meeting of Secured Creditors does not arise.

¶20

That convening and holding the meeting of the Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant abovenamed, for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited with Mandakini Investfin Private Ltd. and their respective Shareholders, is dispensed with

¶21

in view of the consents given by all the Unsecured Creditors which are annexed as Exhibits “G-1 to G-3” to the Affidavit in Support of Summons for Direction.

¶22

(S. J. Kathawalla, J)

¶23

Mandakini Investfin Private Limited Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandakini Investfin 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

Oilco Services (India) Limited Vs

Midco Capital Services Limited Vs

Midco Limited Vs

Crystal Lace (India) Limited Vs

Hanumesh Realtors Private Limited Vs

Hanumesh Investments Privat Limited Vs