9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n) Rules, 2014, for the prayer as prayed inter alia that the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, (ROC Bhavan), Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, may be quashed and set aside and also to direct the respondent to grant application of the petitioner company regarding shifting of the registered office as stated in the petition. 2. The present Civil Application is filed for fixing the early date of hearing of the main matter for the reasons stated above in the application. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Soparkar appearing with learned advocate Shri Dawawala for the petitioner. Though served no one has remained present for the respondents. 4. The background of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. Therefore, the review of the order passed by the Company Judge as stated above in Company Petition No.152 to 154 of 2014 was sought for. 5. It is also contended that the Chartered Accountant M/s. M V Prajapati Co. & Accountants, Ahmedabad, has opined that the difference between the Net Asset Value pay in the form and issue share of the shareholders of the petitioner transferor Company is also not as per the provisions and spirit of the accounting standards. However, as per the statutory report produced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, said application for review has been dismissed for default by Justice R. M. Chhaya, vide order dated 20.06.2017. Therefore, the order amalgamation as stated above, has remained final. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. It is also stated that non shifting of the registered office from the State of Gujarat to the State of Karnataka would cause serious prejudice and therefore, the present application has been filed. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-A, cannot be sustained in light of discussion made hereinabove and therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. The only ground mentioned is that the Company Application Nos.79 to 81 of 2014 has been filed in the respective Company Petitions regarding the scheme for arrangement and amalgamation. However, as stated, once the review applications have been dismissed for default, there is no justification for not considering the application filed by the petitioner company under Section 13 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
