Disposed

Onflag Mercantile Pvt.Ltd. v. -------

Bombay HC15 Feb 2013CSD/158/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dispensed with the requirement to convene meetings of equity shareholders and creditors for approving a scheme of amalgamation between Moonstar and Oneflag Mercantile Private Limited, as consents from two shareholders sufficed and no creditors existed.

What did the court decide?

Meeting of equity shareholders and creditors is dispensed with as consents were obtained from shareholders and there are no creditors.

Onflag Mercantile Pvt.Ltd. Vs ------- — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO 158 OF 2013

¶5

In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

¶6

AND

¶7

In the matter of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956; AND

¶8

In the matter of Scheme of Amalgamation

¶9

¶10

Moonstar Mercantile Private Limited (“the Transferor Company”)

¶11

with

¶12

Oneflag Mercantile Private Limited (“the Transferee Company”) and

¶13

their respective shareholders and creditors

¶14

ONEFLAG MERCANTILE ) PRIVATE LIMITED a company ) incorporated under the provisions ) of the Companies Act, 1956 and ) having its registered office at ) Peninsula Spenta, Mathuradas ) Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat ) Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 ) 013. ) ……..Applicant Company

¶15

Called for Summons for Direction

¶16

Mr. Rajesh Shah with Mr. Chandrakant Mhadeshwar i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co. Advocates for the Applicant.

¶17

Coram: N. M. Jamdar, J. Date: 15^th February, 2013

¶18

¶19

MINUTES OF THE ORDER

¶20

UPON the application of the Applicant Company above named by a Summons for Direction AND UPON HEARING Mr. Rajesh Shah instructed by Rajesh Shah & Co., Advocates for the Applicant Company, AND UPON READING the Affidavit dated 24^th January, 2012 of Mr. Jaideep Tibrewala, Authorised Signatory of the Applicant Company, in support of Summons for Direction and the exhibits therein referred to, IT IS ORDERED :

¶21

That convening and holding the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company, to consider and, if thought fit, approve, with or without modification(s), the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of Moonstar Mercantile Private Limited (‘the Transferor Company’) with Oneflag Mercantile Private Limited (‘the Transferee Company’) and their respective shareholders and creditors is dispensed with in view of the consents given by two Equity shareholders of the Applicant Company which are annexed as Exhibits ‘H1’ and ‘H2’ to the affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction.

¶22

That there are no Secured and Unsecured Creditors in the Applicant Company, as stated in paragraph (12) and (13) respectively, of the affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction. Hence, the question of convening and holding of the meeting of Secured and Unsecured Creditors does not arise.

¶23

(N. M. Jamdar, J.)

Onflag Mercantile Pvt.Ltd. v. -------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onflag Mercantile 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

City Group Investors Welfare Association Vs the Official Liquidator of City Realcom Limited - U45400MH2007PLC170368 and 2 Others

Shilpa Dattatraya Shirodkar Vs Kelkar Education Trust and 5 Ors.

Sunil Ramesh Sitap Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Moonstar Mercantile Pvt.Ltd. Vs -------

Amdocs Development Centre India Pvt.Ltd. Vs ---

N.v.Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs ---