Allowed

Godrej Agrovet Limited v. ---

Bombay HC8 Mar 2013CSP/80/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court sanctioned a petition filed by Godrej Agrovet Limited for the reduction of its capital by way of the Securities Premium Account. The procedure under Section 101(2) was dispensed with as no objection was raised and statutory compliance was verified, making the petition absolute.

What did the court decide?

The petition was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) for the Reduction of Capital (Securities Premium Account).

Godrej Agrovet Limited Vs --- — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 80 OF 2013

¶5

In the matter of Companies Act, 1956 (1

¶6

of 1956);

¶7

AND

¶8

In the matter of Sections 100 to 103 read with Section 78 of the Companies Act, 1956;

¶9

AND

¶10

In the matter of Reduction of Capital (Securities Premium Account) of Godrej Agrovet Limited

¶11

Godrej Agrovet Limited, a Company } incorporated under the provisions of } Companies Act, 1956 having its } Registered Office at Pirojshanagar, } Eastern Express Highway, Vikhroli (E), } … Petitioner Company Mumbai - 400 079.

¶12

Called for Hearing

¶13

¶14

Mr. Hemant Sethi i/b. Hemant Sethi & Co., Advocates for the Petitioner

¶15

Coram: N.M. JAMDAR, J

¶16

Date: 8^TH MARCH 2013

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶19

By order dated 8^th February 2013 the procedure prescribed under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act 1956 was dispensed with.

¶20

The sanction of the Court has been sought for the Reduction of Capital (Securities Premium Account) of Godrej Agrovet Limited, the Petitioner Company as approved in a Special Resolution passed by the Shareholders of the Petitioner Company at the Extra Ordinary General Meeting held on 18^th January, 2013.

¶21

The reasons for reduction are stated in Paragraph 6 of the Petition.

¶22

The Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the averment made in paragraph 12 of the Affidavit in support of Company Scheme, Petition that the proposed reduction will not cause any prejudice to the creditors of the Company since it does not involve any financial outlay/outgo on the part of the Petitioner Company and that the reduction of capital does not involve either the diminution of any liability in respect of unpaid capital or the payment to any shareholder of any paid-up capital.

¶23

¶24

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further states that they have complied with all the statutory requirements as per the directions of this Court and they have filed necessary affidavit of compliance in the Court. Moreover, Petitioner Company also undertakes to comply with statutory requirements, if any, as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶25

No objector has come forward to oppose the proposed reduction. Since the requisite statutory procedure has been fulfilled, the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶26

All concerned parties to act on ordinary copy of order and the form of minutes annexed as Exhibit – ‘G’ to the Petition, duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court, Bombay.

¶27

Petitioner to publish notices in the same newspapers i.e., Free Press Journal, Mumbai Edition in English language and Navshakti in Marathi language, both having circulation in Mumbai and also in the Maharashtra Government Gazette about registration of Order and minutes of reduction by the concerned Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai.

Godrej Agrovet Limited v. ---

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godrej Agrovet 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

Waman Mangesh Nadkarni Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. Yescube Infrastructure Ltd.

Mrs. Anuradha Waman Nadkarni Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. Yescube Infrastructure Ltd.

Shri Amit Kewal Juneja Vs Official Liquidator of Amplas Polymer Pvt. Ltd.

Sci Search and Selection Services Private Limited Vs -

Kalyani Technologies Ltd. Vs ---

Man Diesel and Turbobranch of Man Diesel and Turbo Se, Germany Vs Varun Shipping Company Limited,Cin No. L61100MH1971PLC014985