Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2007 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (7) TMI 408 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Dispensation with the requirement of summoning meetings of equity shareholders and secured and unsecured creditors.
2. Dispensation with the requirement of filing separate company application and petition u/s 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue 1: Dispensation with the requirement of summoning meetings of equity shareholders and secured and unsecured creditors:

M/s. Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Ltd. (the "transferee company") filed a petition to dispense with the requirement of summoning meetings of equity shareholders and secured and unsecured creditors for considering the scheme of amalgamation of M/s. I. A. and I. C. Chemical P. Ltd. and M/s. Pauraj Chemicals P. Ltd. (the "transferor companies"), which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the transferee company. The court noted that the proposed scheme does not affect the rights of the members or creditors of the transferee company, does not involve any reorganisation of the capital structure, and no new shares are to be issued. The court held that the requirement of summoning meetings could be dispensed with, referencing several judgments from various High Courts supporting this view.

Issue 2: Dispensation with the requirement of filing separate company application and petition u/s 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956:

The petitioner-company also sought to dispense with the requirement of filing separate company applications and petitions for the amalgamation scheme. The court observed that both transferor companies had already filed separate applications u/s 391 to 394 before the Bombay High Court, which had sanctioned the scheme and dispensed with the requirement of separate filings. The court concluded that since the transferor companies are wholly owned subsidiaries and the scheme does not affect the rights of members or creditors of the transferee company, the requirement for separate filings could be dispensed with. The court allowed the petition, dispensing with the need for summoning meetings and filing separate applications and petitions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates