9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the scheme of amalgamation of the applicant company with M/s. Spraymetal P. Ltd. Bombay, which was the transferor company. That prayer was granted to the applicant company by an order made by me on September 15, 1981, in the course of which apart from fixing the venue, the date and the time of the meetings, the quorum was also fixed for such of the meetings as were required to be held and an advocate of this court was appointed as chairman of the meetings. Two days before these meetings were scheduled to take place an application was made in this court in Company Application No. 1801/81, by M/s. Spraymetal P. Ltd. seeking virtually an order recalling the order passed by me in Company Application No. 1763 of 1981, sanctioning the holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, which was held at 10.30 a.m. 4 of the 5 secured creditors were present by proxy and voted unanimously against the scheme of amalgamation. That has been recorded by the chairman. He also reports that the credit value of secured creditors who voted against the amalgamation amounts to Rs. 1,52,19,958.17. The meeting of the shareholders of both equity and preference shares could also not be continued as there were no quorum for those meetings. In the result, three of the four meetings were abortive on account of want of quorum while (at the) one meeting that was held, that of secured creditors, the amalgamation was not approved. In the result, this court has no further jurisdiction to decide as to what the applicant company (Suri and N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme of amalgamation. The purpose of the statement is to give a true and accurate picture to all concerned. Unless per se fraudulent intention should be gathered from such statements, and I am unable to see any such intention in the statement of facts of Suri and Nayar, this court will not investigate the bona fides of the statement required to be made under section 393(1) of the Companies Act. Then, next comes the question, whether, the transferor company (being) situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, can this court question the bona fides of the application made by the transferee-company, which is situated in this State and subject to the jurisdiction of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
