9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Companies Act, 2013. The application as provided in the Act for shifting of the registered office and/or alteration of the memor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wala for the petitioner. Though served no one has remained present for the respondents. 4. The background of the facts as stated are that: 4.1. The petitioner company had filed a scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of Quintiles Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Quintiles Data Processing Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. with the petitioner company i.e. M/s. Quintiles Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. having his office at Shapath IV, Opp. Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad. As per the Company Petition No.152 to 154 of 2014 notice was issued and thereafter, considering the objections and the reports, the scheme of amalgamation has been granted. A copy of the order passed (Coram: N. V. Anjaria, J) dated 08.10.2014 is produced at Annexure-B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice R. M. Chhaya, vide order dated 20.06.2017. Therefore, the order amalgamation as stated above, has remained final. However, inspite of the aforesaid order of the Company Judge granting the amalgamation the impugned order at Annexure-A has been passed by the respondent reiterating the same ground as stated in the Review Application meaning thereby he does not accept the order of the High Court (Company Judge) which is not permissible. The provisions of Section 391 to 394 of Companies Act, 1956 provide for such scheme of amalgamation and once the scheme is sanctioned by the Court it is binding on the company creditors and shareholders creating binding obligations. Therefore, as the order is passed by the Company Court, the amalgamation wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for default, there is no justification for not considering the application filed by the petitioner company under Section 13 of the Companies Act, 2013. The application as provided in the Act for shifting of the registered office and/or alteration of the memorandum has to allow as a necessary corollary. Therefore, the impugned communication/order at Annexure-A passed by the Deputy Director for Regional Director, dated 21.03.2017, office of the Regional Director, North-Western Region, Ahmedabad deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly set aside. 7. The Present petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, is hereby set aside. The respondent is dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
