Allowed

Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited Vs

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012CSP/363/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court sanctioned a Scheme of Arrangement between Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited and Mandakini Investfin Private Limited under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, upon confirmation that it was fair, reasonable, and in compliance with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Company Scheme PetITIONS No. 363 of 2012 and No. 364 of 2012 made absolute; directions issued for stamp duty adjudication and filing with ROC.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION No. 363 of 2012

¶4

CONNECTED WITH

¶5

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 178 OF 2012

¶6

Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited ….Petitioner/

¶7

Demerged Company

¶8

AND

¶9

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 364 OF 2012

¶10

CONNECTED WITH

¶11

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 179 OF 2012

¶12

Mandakini Investfin Private Limited ….Petitioner /

¶13

Resulting Company

¶14

In the matter of Section 391 & 394 of the

¶15

Companies Act, 1956;

¶16

And

¶17

In the matter of scheme of Arrangement

¶18

Between

¶19

Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited

¶20

And

¶21

Mandakini Investfin Private Limited

¶22

And

¶23

Their Respective Shareholder.

¶24

Mrs. Madhuri Gaikwad Advocate for the Petitioners in both Petitions.

¶25

Mr. D.P. Singh for Regional Director in both the Petitions.

¶26

CORAM: Anoop V. Mohta, J

¶27

DATE: 5th October, 2012

¶28

P.C.:

¶29

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶30

The Sanction of the Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to a Scheme of Arrangement between Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited, ‘the Demerged Company’ and Mandakini Investfin Private Limited, ‘the Resulting Company and their respective shareholders.

¶31

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

¶32

The Regional Director has filed an affidavit dated 28/09/2012 stating therein that the scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of shareholders and public.

¶33

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 in the court.

¶34

Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, Company Scheme Petition No.363 of 2012 and Company Scheme Petition No.364 of 2012 are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the respective petitions.

¶35

The petitioners to lodge a copy of this order and the Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar,

¶36

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 order.

¶37

The petitioner company to file a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the Scheme of Arrangement with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically , alongwith E- Form 21 in addition to the physical copy within 30 days from the date of issuance of the order by the Registry.

¶38

The Petitioner in both the Petitions to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to the Regional Director. Costs to be paid within four weeks from today.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Anoop V. Mohta, J)

Mandakini Hospitality Private Limited Vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandakini Hospitality 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

Jindal Photo Limited Vs

Madan Lachmandas Asrani(Huf) Vs Peacock Media Limited - U22200MH2000PLC125483

M/S. Medi Pharma Drug House Vs Ankur Drugs and Pharma Limited - L24230MH1995LCO85410

Mandakini Investfin Private Limited Vs

Hanumesh Realtors Private Limited Vs

Hanumesh Investments Privat Limited Vs