Allowed

Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited v. ----------------

Bombay HC22 Mar 2013CSP/50/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation between Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited (Transferor) and Diligent Media Corporation Limited (Transferee) under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding the scheme fair, reasonable, and compliant with statutory directions.

What did the court decide?

Company Scheme Petition No. 50 of 2013 made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c), and (d); Transferor Company to be dissolved.

Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited Vs… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO 50 OF 2013

¶3

CONNECTED WITH

¶4

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO 2 OF 2013

¶5

DAKSHIN MEDIA GAMING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶6

…………Petitioner / Transferor Company

¶7

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

¶8

AND

¶9

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

¶10

AND

¶11

In the matter of Scheme of Amalgamation OF Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited (‘the Transferor Company’)

¶12

WITH

¶13

Diligent Media Corporation Limited (‘the Transferee Company’)

¶14

AND

¶15

their respective Shareholders

¶16

Called for Hearing

¶17

Mr. Hemant Sethi i/b M/s. Hemant Sethi & Co., for the Petitioners

¶18

Mrs. R.N.Sutar, Asst. Official Liquidator present.

¶19

Mr. C.J Joy with Ms. Anamika Malhotra, i/b H.P Chaturvedi for Regional Director

¶20

CORAM: Ranjit More, J.

¶21

DATE: 22^nd March, 2013

¶22

P.C. :-

¶23

Heard learned counsels for the parties. No objector has come before the court to oppose the Scheme and nor any party has contravened any averments made in the Petition.

¶24

¶25

The sanction of the Court is sought under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the Scheme of Amalgamation of Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited, the Transferor Company, with Diligent Media Corporation Limited, the Transferee Company, and their respective shareholders.

¶26

Learned counsels for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner in Company Scheme Petition No. 50 of 2013 was incorporated with the object to carry on media business and operating Ten Cricket, a sports TV channel. Further the learned advocate states that the Transferee Company is engaged in business of printing and publishing of DNA, an English Daily newspaper circulated in major metros in India and carry on the business of publishing and distribution of magazines, bulletins, periodicals, journals, text books and other literary works. He further states that the Petitioner Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Diligent Media Corporation Limited, the Transferee Company. The management considered to consolidate the two companies with an objective to ease management and control efficiencies reduction of cost, deriving synergy benefits, eliminate multiple layers by consolidation of holdings, reduction in number of companies etc. The Petitioner Company approved the said Scheme by passing the Board Resolution which is annexed to the respective Company Scheme Petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further states that the Petitioner company has complied with all the directions passed in Company Summons for Direction and that the Company Scheme Petition have been filed in consonance with the orders passed in respective Summons for Directions.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Company submits that by an order passed in the court on 11^th January, 2013 in Company Summons for Direction No. 2 of 2013, the filing of separate Company Summons for Direction

¶29

¶30

and Company Scheme Petition in relation to the proposed Scheme by the Transferee Company, Diligent Media Corporation Limited was dispensed with in view of the Judgment passed by this Court in Mahaamba Investments Limited Versus IDI Limited (2001) 105 Company Cases (pages 16 to 18).

¶31

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner has complied with all requirements as per directions of this Hon’ble Court and it has filed necessary affidavits of compliance in the Hon’ble Court. Moreover, Petitioner Company undertakes 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 27/02/2013 stating therein that save and except as stated in paragraphs 6 of the said affidavit, it appears that Scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of shareholders and public. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit it is stated that:

¶33

“That the Deponent further submits that:-

¶34

Clause 6.1 (d) of the Scheme states that the Excess of the net assets value of the Transferor Company transferred to the Transferee Company would be credited to the ‘General Reserve’. In this regard, it is suggested that the Reserve arising out of this Scheme of Amalgamation, be transferred to Capital Reserve Account in the books of Transferee Company.”

¶35

In reply to the aforesaid observations raised by the Regional Director, the Petitioner Company through their Counsel undertakes that Reserve arising out of the scheme shall be transferred to the Capital Reserve Account in the books of Transferee Company.

¶36

¶37

The Learned Counsel for Regional Director on instructions of Mr. M. Chandanamuthu, Joint Director in the office of the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Western Region, Mumbai states that they are satisfied with the undertaking given by the Advocate for the Petitioner Companies. The said undertaking is accepted.

¶38

The Official Liquidator has filed his report dated 15/03/2013 in Company Scheme Petition No. 50 of 2013 stating therein that the affairs of the Transferor Company have been conducted in a proper manner and that the Transferor Company may be ordered to be dissolved by this Court.

¶39

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 has come forward to oppose the Scheme.

¶40

Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, Company Scheme Petition No. 50 of 2013 filed by the Transferor Company is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c) and (d).

¶41

The Petitioner Companies to lodge a copy of this order and the Scheme, duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, 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 the Order.

¶42

Petitioner is directed to file a copy of this order along with a copy of the Scheme of Amalgamation with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically, along with E-Form 21 in addition to physical copy as per relevant provisions of law.

¶43

The Petitioner in the Company Scheme Petition No. 50 of 2013 to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the Regional Director,

¶44

¶45

Western Region, Mumbai and the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay. Costs to be paid within four weeks from today.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

(Ranjit More, J)

Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited v. ----------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited v. ----------------

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edsel Toscano Vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

M/S. Habitat and Ors. Vs Superintending Engineer and Anr.

Arjun Amarshi Waghari and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ashru Lata and Company Private Limited Vs

Jilani Promotors Private Limited Vs Registrar of Companies, Pune

Intel Instruments and Systems Ltd. Vs ---