Allowed

Metropolis Healthcare Limited v. --------------

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012CSP/690/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed Metropolis Healthcare Limited's petition for reducing capital from its Securities Premium Account under Sections 78 and 100-103 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court dispensed with procedural steps, noted lack of opposition, and directed the company to file the order with the Registrar.

What did the court decide?

The petition for reduction of capital from the Securities Premium Account was allowed. The petitioner company was directed to file the order and scheme electronically with the Registrar of Companies w

Metropolis Healthcare Limited Vs -------------- — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

csp690.12.sxw

ssm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 690 OF 2012

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 685 OF 2012

¶9

In the matter of Reduction of Capital (Securities Premium Account) of Metropolis Healthcare Limited.

¶10

Metropolis Healthcare Limited ......Petitioner/Company.

¶11

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani with Ms. Kirtida Chandarana i/by Mr. Mehernosh Humranwala for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 25 SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶14

The Petitioner Company under Section 100 to 103 read with

¶15

Section 78 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Companies Act") filed the Petition for reduction of capital (Securities Premium Account) of the Company.

csp690.12.sxw

ssm

2 The Board of Directors, in its meeting dated 29 March 2012 have approved the utilization of Securities Premium Account and passed the resolution accordingly.

¶20

3 The meeting of the equity shareholders of the company was held on 1 August 2012. The special resolution was unanimously passed by all the equity share holders/proxies. The necessary resolutions are the part of the Petition. The reasons for reduction and filing present Petition, are also averred in the Petition.

¶21

4 By order dated 14 September 2012 in Company Summons for Direction No. 685 of 2012, this Court has dispensed with the procedure prescribed under 101(2) of the Companies Act. On 14 September 2012, this Court has admitted the Petition. The Petition was accordingly fixed for final disposal on 24 September 2012. All the requisite and necessary formalities have been complied with, as per the directions of the Court. The Petitioner company undertakes to comply with the statutory requirements, if any, as required under the Companies Act and Rules. The undertaking is accepted accordingly. Affidavit of Publication dated 17 September 2012, and the Affidavit of the Petitioner Company recording no opposition from the public,

csp690.12.sxw

ssm

dated 24 September 2012 are filed on record. The statement is made, and even after verification of the record it is found that none of the parties concerned have come forward to oppose the Petition/scheme i.e. reduction of share capital.

¶26

5 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and considering the reasons so provided and as there is no opposition of any kind and as the Scheme so proposed in no way contrary to the law and/or the public policy, I am inclined to allow the Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶27

6 The Petitioner company is directed to file a copy of this order along with a copy of the Scheme with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically, along with E-Form 21 within 30 days from the date of issuance of the order by the Registry.

¶28

7 All concerned parties to act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court, Bombay.

¶29

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

csp690.12.sxw

ssm

9 The Petitioner to publish notices in the two local newspapers i.e.

¶34

"Free Press Journal" in English and "Navshakti" in Marathi both having circulation in Mumbai and also in the Maharashtra Government Gazette about registration of the Order and minutes of reduction with the concerned Registrar of Companies.

¶35

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Metropolis Healthcare Limited v. --------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Metropolis Healthcare 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

Rajendra a. Shah (H.U.F.) Vs M/s. Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited

Ventura Securities Ltd. Vs Centpercent Investment Ltd.

Mr. Bupal Nana Khichade Vs Shamrao Vithal Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey Vs the Registrar of Companies

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey Vs the Registrar of Companies

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey Vs the Registrar of Companies