Disposed

Exemplar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. -

Bombay HC23 Jan 2015CSD/25/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter for company summons for directions under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Bombay High Court dispensed with the need to convene and hold meetings of shareholders and secured creditors for approving a proposed scheme of amalgamation. The court relied on consents from all equity shareholders and accepted undertakings to notify unsecured creditors and publish notices in newspape

What did the court decide?

The application for summons for directions was disposed of by dispensing with the need to hold meetings of shareholders and secured creditors; notice to unsecured creditors via individual notice and n

Exemplar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs - — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 25 OF 2015

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

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

¶7

AND

¶8

In the matter of Scheme of Amalgamation of Exemplar Engineering Private Limited with Deeco Mechatron Marketing Private Limited

¶9

Exemplar Engineering ) Private Limited is a private ) company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 ) having its registered office at 96 – C, Maker Chambers – III, ) 9^th Floor, 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.

¶10

) ……Applicant Company

¶11

Called Summons for Directions for hearing

¶12

Mr. Hemant Sethi i/b. Hemant Sethi & Co., for Applicant

¶13

Coram: S. J. Kathawalla, J.

¶14

Date: 23^rd January, 2015

¶15

MINUTES OF THE ORDER

¶16

UPON the application of the Applicant Company above named by a

¶17

Company Summons for Directions AND UPON HEARING Mr. Hemant

¶18

Sethi instructed by M/S Hemant Sethi & Co., Advocates for the

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

Applicant Company, AND UPON READING the Affidavit dated 12^th day of December, 2014 of Mr. Mazher Hoosein, Director of the Applicant Company, in support of Summons for Directions and the Exhibits therein referred to, IT IS ORDERED:

¶21

That convening and holding the meeting of the ‘A’ class 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 Exemplar Engineering Private Limited with Deeco Mechatron Marketing Private Limited is dispensed with in view of consent given by all the three ‘A’ class Equity Shareholders of the Applicant Company, which are annexed as Exhibits “C-1” to “C3” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction.

¶22

That convening and holding the meeting of the ‘B’ class 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 Exemplar Engineering Private Limited with Deeco Mechatron Marketing Private Limited, is dispensed with in view of the consent given by ‘B’ class Equity Shareholder of the Applicant Company, which is annexed as Exhibits “C4” to the Affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

That the question of convening and holding of the meeting of the Secured Creditors of the Applicant Company does not arise since there are no Secured Creditors in the Applicant Company as stated in paragraph 13 of the Affidavit in support of the Company Summons for Direction.

¶25

That convening and holding the meeting of the Unsecured Creditors 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 Exemplar Engineering Private Limited with Deeco Mechatron Marketing Private Limited, is dispensed with in view of averments made in paragraph 14 of the Affidavit in support of Company Summons for Directions, inter-alia stating that the proposed scheme is an Arrangement between the Applicant Company and its shareholders in accordance with the provisions of Section 391(1)(b) and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 391(1)(a) as there is no Arrangement and/or Compromise with the Creditors as no sacrifice is called for under the proposed Scheme and that the Applicant Company undertakes to issue individual notice of the hearing of the Petition by R.P.A.D. to all its Unsecured Creditors and also undertakes to publish the notice of hearing of the Petition in two local newspapers i.e. ‘Free Press Journal’, in English language

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

and, translation thereof in ‘Navshakti’, in Marathi language, both having circulation in Mumbai. The said undertaking is accepted.

¶28

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J)

¶29

Page 4 of 4

Exemplar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Exemplar Engineering 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

Narayan Sakharam Kadu and 2 Ors. Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd.

The Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs Starlite Lighting Ltd. (Cin U31300MH1995PLC090213)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs Semco Profile Pvt. Ltd. (in Liquidation) and Anr.

Lisha Trading Private Limited Vs -

SBI Factors and Commercial Services Ltd. (Now Known as SBI Global Factors Ltd.) Vs the Official Liquidator, of M/S. Enkay Texofood Industries Ltd. (in Liquidation)

Vinod Ramanathan Vs 3I Infotech Ltd,Cin NO.L67120MH1993PLC074411