Disposed

Akhand Warehousing Private Limited v. -

Bombay HC28 Feb 2014CSD/116/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a company summons for direction under the Companies Act, 1956 regarding a proposed scheme of amalgamation, the court dispensed with the need to convene a meeting of equity shareholders due to their unanimous consent. It also held that a meeting of creditors did not arise as none existed.

What did the court decide?

Order: Meeting of equity shareholders dispensed with; meeting of creditors as not arising.

Akhand Warehousing Private Limited Vs - — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 116 OF 2014.

¶5

In the matter of the Companies Act, 1 of 1956; AND In the matter of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956; AND

¶6

In the matter of Scheme of Amalgamation of AKHAND WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, and PAHADI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, and PASCHIM CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, and LILAC CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, and YELLOWVALLEY TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, with SINDHUR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED.

¶7

AKHAND WAREHOUSING PRIVATE ) LIMITED, a company incorporated ) under the Companies Act, 1956 ) having its registered office at Somaiya Bhavan, 45/47, M. G. ) … Applicant Company. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

¶8

Called for Summons for Direction

¶9

Mr. Rajesh Shah with Mr. Chandrakant Mhadeshwar i/b M/s. Rajesh Shah & Co., Advocate for the Applicant

¶10

Coram: G. S. Patel, J. Date: 28^st February, 2014

¶11

MINUTES OF THE ORDER

¶12

UPON the application of the Applicant Company above named by a Summons for Direction AND UPON HEARING Mr. Rajesh Shah instructed by M/s. Rajesh Shah & Co., Advocate for the Applicant Company, AND UPON READING the Affidavit dated 31^st day of January, 2014 of Mr. Mr. Naresh S. Khetan, Director

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

¶15

of the Applicant Company, in support of the Company Summons for Direction and the exhibit therein referred to, IT IS ORDERED:-

¶16

That the convening and holding the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving, with or without modification(s) the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of AKHAND WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, and PAHADI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED and PASCHIM CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, and LILAC CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, and YELLOWVALLEY TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, with SINDHUR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, is dispensed with in view of the consents given by all two Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company, which are annexed as Exhibit “C-1” and “C-2” to the Affidavit in support of the Company Summons for Direction.

¶17

That the question of convening and holding the meeting of Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors does not arise since there are no Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Company as stated in paragraph 36 of the Affidavit in support of Summons for Direction.

¶18

(G. S. Patel, J)

¶19

Page 2 of 4

Akhand Warehousing Private Limited v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhand Warehousing Private 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

Food Corpsoration of India Vs Dinesh P.Thapar Proprietor

Bombay Vegetable Markets Unproducted Labour Board Vs the Liquidator, M/S. Chetana Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Kopran Ltd. Vs Gesellschaft Fur Biotech-Nologische Forschung Mbh and Anr.

Pahadi Transport Private Limited Vs -

Yellowvalley Transport Private Limited Vs -

Plextech Technologies (India) Private Limited Vs -