Disposed

Tinsel Properties Private Limited v. 0

Bombay HC24 Apr 2015CSD/317/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court of Bombay dispensed with convening shareholder and creditor meetings for a scheme of amalgamation under Companies Act, 1956, due to existing consents. The court waived separate petitions by the transferee company citing precedent.

What did the court decide?

Dispensed with convening meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured creditors; accepted undertaking to notice unsecured creditors; dispensed with separate company scheme petition by transferee comp

Tinsel Properties Private Limited Vs 0 — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 317 OF 2015

¶2

IN THE MATTER of Companies Act, 1956 (or re-enactment thereof upon effectiveness of Companies Act, 2013);

¶3

AND

¶4

IN THE MATTER of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956; (or any corresponding provision of the Companies act, 2013 as may be notified);

¶5

AND

¶6

IN THE MATTER of Tinsel Properties Private Limited

¶7

AND

¶8

IN THE MATTER of the Scheme of Amalgamation of

¶9

Devmiti Finvestrade Private Limited (The 1^st “Transferor Company”) AND

¶10

Krishanu Finlease Private Limited

¶11

(The 2^nd “Transferor Company”)AND

¶12

Tinsel Properties Private Limited (The 3^rd “Transferor Company”) WITH

¶13

Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited (The “Transferee Company”) AND

¶14

Their Respective Shareholders.

¶15

Tinsel Properties Private Limited ) A company incorporated under the provisions ) of the Company Act, 1956 and having its ) registered office at 1608/1609, Prasad Chambers, ) Opera House, Mumbai- 400 004, ) … Applicant

¶16

Called Company Summons for Direction for hearing

¶17

Mr.Yogesh Adhia, Advocate for Applicant.

¶18

Coram: S. J. Kathawalla, J. Date : 24^th April, 2015

¶19

MINUTES OF THE ORDER

¶20

UPON the application of the Applicant above named by Company Summons for Direction AND UPON hearing Mr. Yogesh Adhia, Advocate for the Applicant Company AND UPON reading the Affidavit dated 26^th February, 2015 and Further Affidavit dated 1^st April 2015, both of Mr. Rajiv Jhaveri, Director of the Applicant Company, in support of Company Summons for Direction and the Exhibits therein, referred thereto IT IS ORDERED THAT:

¶21

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 Scheme of Amalgamation between Devmiti Finvestrade Private Limited (The 1^st “Transferor Company”) and Krishanu Finlease Private Limited (The 2^nd “Transferor Company”) and Tinsel Properties Private Limited (The 3^rd “Transferor Company”) with Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited (The “Transferee Company”) and their respective shareholders, is dispensed with in view of the consent given by both the Equity Shareholders of the

¶22

Applicant Company, which are annexed as Exhibits “R-1”and“R-2 ” to the Affidavit in Support of the Company Summons for Direction.

¶23

The question of convening and holding the meeting of Secured Creditors does not arise as there are no Secured Creditors of the Applicant Company, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Further Affidavit in Support of Company Summons for Direction.

¶24

The 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 Scheme of Amalgamation between Devmiti Finvestrade Private Limited (The 1^st “Transferor Company”) and Krishanu Finlease Private Limited (The 2^nd “Transferor Company”) and Tinsel Properties Private Limited (The 3^rd “Transferor Company”) with Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited (The “Transferee Company”) and their respective shareholders, is dispensed with in view of the averments made in paragraphs 14 and 17 of the Affidavit and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Further Affidavit, both in support of the Company Summons for Direction inter alia stating that Scheme does not affect the rights of the creditors of either the Transferor or Transferee Companies, as the same is only between the Companies and their respective members and that none of the rights of the creditors of any of the Companies are sought to be affected or modified and that in any event, the Transferee Company (Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited), would be able to meet the liabilities as they arise in due course of business and that nobody would be prejudiced if the proposed Scheme is sanctioned, and the Applicant Company undertakes to issue individual notice of the date of hearing of the Company Scheme Petition by Registered Post A.D. to all its Unsecured Creditors and also publish the notice of the date of hearing of the

¶25

Company Scheme Petition in two local newspapers namely “Free Press Journal” in English language and translation thereof in “Navshakti” in Marathi language both having circulation in Mumbai. The said undertaking is accepted.

¶26

That in view of the averments made in paragraph 24 of the affidavit in support of the Summons for Direction, interalia stating that the Transferee Company, Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, is the 100% holding company of the Transferor Company i.e. the Applicant Company, and upon the Scheme becoming effective, the entire share capital of the Transferor Company would stand cancelled and no shares would be allotted of the Transferee Company to the shareholders of the Transferor Company and in view of the Judgement of this Court in Mahaamba Investment Limited vs IDI Limited (2001) Company Cases 105, as the observations made therein filing a separate Company Summons for Directions and Company Scheme Petition by Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, the Transferee Company, is dispensed with.

Tinsel Properties Private Limited v. 0

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinsel Properties Private Limited v. 0

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

Dd Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs -

Vinod K Mehru and 8 Others Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Amidtown Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Pritam R Pereira Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Amidtown Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank Limited Vs M/S. Aftek Limited

International Transmission Ltd. Vs -

Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs -