Delhi High Court
Smarttrust Infosolution Private ... vs ..... on 5 May, 2014
$~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th May, 2014
CO. APPL. (M) NO. OF 80/2014
SMARTTRUST INFOSOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER
........Applicants
Through: Ms. Beena Rani Panday and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal
Advocates for the Applicants
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.: (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of a
typographical error in the index, urgent application and memo
of parties, it has been mentioned that the application has been
filed under Sections 230 to 240 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The application, in fact, has been filed under Sections 391 to
394 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is correctly reflected in
the main petition as well as the affidavit and in the scheme of
amalgamation the correct provision has been mentioned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may
be permitted to correct these errors and file a corrected memo
of parties as well as the index.
2. The oral prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner may
file the corrected copies of papers within two days.
Co. Appl. No.80/2014 1
3. This first motion joint application has been filed under Sections
391to394 of the Companies Act, 1956 („Act‟) in connection
with the Scheme of Arrangement („Scheme‟) of
SMARTTRUST INFOSOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED
(hereinafter referred to as Applicant/Transferor Company)with
GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED(hereinafter referred to as „Applicant Transferee
Company‟)[hereinafter collectively referred to as „Applicant
Companies‟]. A copy of the proposed Scheme is enclosed with
this application
4. The Registered Offices of the Applicant Companies are situated
within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and are within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The details of the dates of incorporation of the Applicant
Companies, their authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up
capital have been set out in the Application.
6. The copies of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association as well as the latest audited annual accounts for the
year ended 31st March 2013 of the Applicant Companies have
also been enclosed with the application.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicant Companies submits that
no proceedings under Sections 235 to 251 of the Act are
pending against any of the Applicant Companies as on the date
of the application.
Co. Appl. No.80/2014 2
8. The proposed Scheme has been approved by the Board of
Directors („BoDs‟) of the Applicant Companies. The copies of
the board resolutions have also been enclosed with the
application.
9. The status of the equity shareholders, secured creditors and
unsecured creditors of the Applicant Companies and the
consents obtained from them for the proposed Scheme is
provided in the application which reads as under:-
No. of Consent No. of Consent No. of Consent
Company equity given secured given unsecure given
share- creditors d
holders creditors
Transferor 2 All NIL N.A. 2 All
company
Transferee 2 All NIL N.A. 32 27
company (Value -
94.27%)
Numbers-
84.37%)
10. A prayer has been made for dispensing with the requirement of
convening the meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured
creditors of Applicant Companies. It is stated that the said
Equity shareholders and Unsecured Creditors have duly given
their no objection certificates for the approval of the proposed
Scheme.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 32
unsecured creditors of the transferee company, 30 creditors
have given their consent. With respect to the Tata Consultancy
Co. Appl. No.80/2014 3
Services Pvt. Ltd. though the consent has been placed on record
but the Resolution of the Board of Directors has not been
placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that even if it was assumed that Tata Consultancy Services
Limited, Hewett Parkard India Sales (P) Ltd. and Leo Prince
Comp (P) Limited have not consented to the scheme of the
petitioner and excluding these, the consent of 94.27% of the
unsecured creditors has been received.
12. Prayer for dispensation of the meeting of the equity
shareholders and the unsecured creditors is sought for as the
consent has been received from more than 75% of the
unsecured creditors in value and more than 50% in number of
the transferee company and 100% consent from the unsecured
creditors of the transferee company has been received. With
regard to the shareholders, 100% of the consent of the
shareholders of both the transferor and the transferee company
has been received.
13. In view of the written consents/NOC given by 84.37% in
number and 94.27% in value of the Unsecured Creditors of the
Transferee Company, the requirement of convening meeting of
Unsecured Creditors of Transferee Company is dispensed with.
14. In view of the written consents/ NOC obtained and the
averments made in the application and the body corporate‟s
consents are supported by the board resolution, the requirement
Co. Appl. No.80/2014 4
of convening the meeting of the Equity shareholders of the
Applicant companies and Unsecured Creditors of the
Transferor Company, the requirement of convening their
meeting is dispensed with.
15. Since the Applicant Companies does not have any secured
creditors in the Applicant Companies, hence the requirement of
convening the meetings of secured creditors do not arise.
16. The Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
Co. Appl. No.80/2014 5
$~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th May, 2014
CO. APPL. (M) NO. OF 83 /2014
Anand Buildwell Consultants Private Limited & ANR.
.....Applicants
Through: Mr. Mahesh Agarwal and Rajeev Kumar
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.: (ORAL)
1. This joint first motion Application under Sections 391 to 394 of
the Companies Act, 1956 ("Act") is in connection with a
Scheme of Amalgamation ("Scheme") of Anand Buildwell
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Applicant-
1/Transferor Company-1) and Polym Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as Applicant-2/Transferor Company-2)
With Spherical Collection Agency Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as Applicant-3/Transferee Company-3) (hereinafter
all Companies collectively referred to as "Applicant
Companies") and their respective Shareholders. The Scheme
has been enclosed as Annexure A to the present Application.
2. The Registered Offices of all the Applicant Companies are
situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble
Court.
Co.APPL.(M) 83/2014 1
3. The details of the dates of incorporation of the Applicant
Companies, their authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up
capital have been set out in application.
4. The copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association,
latest Audited Accounts as on 31.03.2013 of the Applicant
Companies have also been enclosed with the Application.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant Companies submits that no
proceeding under Sections 235 to 251 of the Act is pending
against the Applicant Companies as on the date of the
Application.
6. The proposed scheme has been approved by the Board of
Directors of all the Applicant Companies. Certified true copies
of the Board Resolutions have been filed along with the
Application.
7. The status of the shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors
of the Applicant Companies and the consents obtained from
them for the proposed scheme is clearly apparent from the chart
given in the application which is as follows:-
Company No. of Consen No of Consen No of Consent
Share t Given Secured t Given Unsecure Given
holder Creditor d
Creditor
Co.APPL.(M) 83/2014 2
Applicant 12 12 Nil NA 1 1
1/Transfe
ror Co.1
Applicant 47 47 Nil NA 36 35
2/ (98.18%
Transfero in value
r co.2 and
97.30%
in
number)
Applicant 2 2 Nil NA 2 2
3/transfer
or Co.3
8. A prayer has been made for dispensing with the requirement of
convening meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured
creditors of the Applicant Companies. It is stated that said
equity shareholders and unsecured creditors have only given
their no objection Certificate for the approval of the proposed
scheme.
9. With regard to the unsecured creditor of applicant No.1, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is only one
unsecured creditor and the consent letter of the unsecured
creditor has been placed on record, however, there is no
resolution of the Board of Directors supporting the letter of
consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
consent letter alongwith resolution of the Board of Directors
shall be filed alongwith second motion petition and prays for
Co.APPL.(M) 83/2014 3
dispensation of the meeting of the sole unsecured creditors.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment dated
22.10.2013 of this Court in Company Application (M)
No.142/2013, Manav Holding Private Limited.
11. In view of the above, the meeting is dispensed with subject to
Transferor Company No.1 filing board resolution in support of
the consent letter of the sole unsecured creditor at the time of
the second motion petition.
12. In view of the Written consents, NOC by 98.18% in value and
97.30% in number of the unsecured creditors of the transferee
company, the requirement of convening meetings of unsecured
creditors of transferee company is dispensed with.
13. In view of the written consents/NOC given, the requirement of
convening the meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured
creditors of Applicant Companies are dispensed with, since the
Applicant Companies do not have any secured creditors. Hence,
the requirement of convening the meeting of secured creditors
does not arise.
14. The application stands allowed in above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
05 MAY 2014
st
Co.APPL.(M) 83/2014 4
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP 914/2011
ITE INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate.
versus
MUKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Neeru Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Since substantial arguments of the parties are yet to be
advanced, the matter is released from part heard.
List the matter before the Roaster Bench for directions on 19th
May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP 255/2010 & IA Nos.6264/2010, 16585/2010, 16586/2010 &
903/2014
ROGER SHASHOUA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate.
versus
MUKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Neeru Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Since substantial arguments of the parties are yet to be
advanced, the matter is released from part heard.
List the matter before the Roaster Bench for directions on 19th
May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~ 54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 386/2000 & CA Nos.712/2014, 1002/2014 & 1003/2014
M/S DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCN. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
UJALA LEASING LTD. ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
None appears for the parties.
Renotify on 6th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~21 & 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 595/2013
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Saurabh Kripal with Mr. Varun
Kumar and Ms. Saloni Chowdhry,
Advocates.
versus
NET 4 INDIA LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal with Mr. Gaurav
Choudhary, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that an application
placing on record certain facts has been filed, however, the same has
not been listed. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that
an effort is being made to resolve the dispute and to give a proposal to
the petitioner for payment of their dues.
List on 19th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 61/2014
IN THE MATTER OF MADHAV FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Tariq Muneer with Mr. Avinash
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
.... ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to file an
additional affidavit on behalf of the parent transferee company that
the transferee company shall comply with the requirements of the
rules and regulations of the Reserve Bank of India.
At request, adjourned to 21st May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 9/2014 & CA 18-19/2014
M/S TAURAS FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate.
versus
TIRUPATI BUILDING AND OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajeev Saxena with Mr. Rohan
Ahuja, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply
to the petition.
Let reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 26th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 633/2013
VRB FOODS PVT LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Beena Rani Pandey with Mr.
Rohit Aggarwal, Advocates.
versus
........... ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Atma Sah, Assistant ROC for
Registrar of Companies.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that additional
affidavit in response to the observations of the Regional Director has
been re-filed in the morning today and prays for an adjournment.
At request, adjourned to 8th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 383/2011
NATRAJ SALES ..... Petitioner
Through None.
versus
TELCO WATER TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Yukti Gupta, proxy for Mr.
Ashish Makhija, Advocate for
Official Liquidator.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Report 286/2014
By order dated 12.11.2013, the petitioner was directed to
deposit costs of publication of Rs.1,17,676/- to the Official
Liquidator. The said costs were not deposited and by the order dated
19.03.2014, counsel for the petitioner was directed to be present in
Court on 16.04.2014. On 16.04.2014, counsel for the petitioner had
sought two weeks time to deposit the costs for the publication of the
citation. The order of 16.04.2014 records that in the event the said
costs are not deposited, the petition would be dismissed. Despite a
peremptory order being passed, neither the costs have been deposited
nor anyone is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of the persistent default of the petitioner, the petition is,
thus, liable to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 16.04.2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator prays for an
adjournment to ascertain if any other expenditure has been incurred by
the Official Liquidator.
Renotify on 16th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 535/2013 & CA 1845/2013
M/S SUKI CREATIONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Uchit Bhandari, Advocate.
versus
M/S CLASSIC BOTTLE CAPS PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. K. Bhardwaj with Mr. Ajay
Sejwal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to file
rejoinder. Let rejoinder be filed within two weeks.
Renotify on 19th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.APPL.(M) 84/2014
IN THE MATTER OF HOST BUILDWELL PVT.LTD. & OTHERS
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate.
versus
.... ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
It is noticed that at pages 391 to 405, the consent letters have
been filed stating that the signatories are unsecured creditors of Polym
Agencies Private Limited. Polym Agencies Private Limited is not an
applicant in this petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that there are two petitions which were filed and in one petition
Polym Agencies Private Limited is a party. There appears to be an
error and prays for some time to take appropriate steps for correction
of the error.
At request, adjourned to 12th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 287/2014 & CA 1015/2014
IN THE MATTER OF AR AEROTEC PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Middha, Advocate.
versus
.... ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
This is a petition under Sections 391-394 of the Companies
Act, 1956 (Section Motion).
Issue notice to the Official Liquidator, Registrar of Companies
and the Central Government through Regional Director, North,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Mr. Atma Sah, Asstt. ROC, accepts notice on behalf of the
Registrar of Companies and Regional Director.
Mr. S.B. Gautam, Official Liquidator accepts notice.
Let a response to the petition be filed within eight weeks.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
Notice be also published in "Business Standard" (English) and
Jansatta (Hindi) edition.
List for hearing on 27 th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014/st
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 286/2014
GATEWAY CAPITAL LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Krishnam Venugopal, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Aman Leekha and
Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Advocates.
versus
ICICI PRUDENTIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD.
..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CO.Pet. 286/2014
Issue notice to the respondent by ordinary process and speed
post, returnable on 10th September, 2014.
CA 1006/2014 (under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules.
Issue notice to the respondent by ordinary process and speed
post, returnable on 10th September, 2014.
CA 1007/2014 (under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this
application at this stage.
Dismissed as not pressed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 225/2014
GLINTS GLOBAL GENERAL TRADING LLC THROUGH MR.
SANJEEV MENON ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Anupama Gupta, Advocate.
versus
SR FOILS AND TISSUE LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF
MANAGING DIRECTOR ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CA 990/2014
By the present application, the petitioner has sought a restraint
on the respondent company from alienating its moveable and
immovable assets without the leave of the Court. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that since the amount owed by the respondent is
approximately Rs.7 crores, there is an apprehension that the
respondent company may create a third party interest in the moveable
and immovable assets of the company.
Issue notice to the respondents by ordinary process and speed
post, returnable on 23rd July, 2014, the date already fixed. Dasti in
addition.
In the meantime, the respondent company is restrained from
selling, alienating or transferring its immovable assets except in the
ordinary course of business.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014/st
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 141/2014
M/S GOKUL PROJECTS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Dhingra with Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Verma, Advocates.
versus
HARYANA CITY GAS DISTRBUTION LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for
Haryana City Gas Dist. Ltd. for Kapil
Chopra Group.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CA No.1013/2014
This is an application by the petitioner company seeking
directions for issuance of a notice to the respondents in the main
petition. As per the petitioner, the company petition had been listed
for the first time on 28.02.2014, when the Hon'ble Judge was pleased
to recuse from the matter. Thereafter, the matter was listed on
14.03.2014 and could not be taken up on account of paucity of time
and had been adjourned. Thereafter, the matter was listed on
04.04.2014, when the Hon'ble Court was on leave and the matter was
adjourned to 18.07.2014. In these circumstances, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that preliminary hearing in the matter could not
take place and notice could not be issued.
It is noticed that neither the matter has been considered at the
pre-notice state nor the notice has been directed to be issued and
served on the respondent. However, the respondents are present in
Court represented through a counsel.
In view of the above, the application is allowed. The matter is
taken up for hearing.
CO.PET. 141/2014
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate
enter appearance for the respondent company and contend that there
are disputes between the Directors of the respondents company
pending before the Company Law Board. Two sets of respondents
counsel submit that there is a restriction on the holding of the Board
Meeting.
Let a reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 9th September, 2014.
CA 472/2014
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this
application at this stage.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014/st
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 140/2014
BUCON ENGINEERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Dhingra with Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Verma, Advocates.
versus
HARYANA CITY GAS DISTRIBUTIONS LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate for the
respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for
Haryana City Gas Dist. Ltd. for Kapil
Chopra Group.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CA No.1011/2014
This is an application by the petitioner company seeking
directions for issuance of a notice to the respondents in the main
petition. As per the petitioner, the company petition had been listed
for the first time on 28.02.2014, when the Hon'ble Judge was pleased
to recuse from the matter. Thereafter, the matter was listed on
14.03.2014 and could not be taken up on account of paucity of time
and had been adjourned. Thereafter, the matter was listed on
04.04.2014, when the Hon'ble Court was on leave and the matter was
adjourned to 18.07.2014. In these circumstances, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that preliminary hearing in the matter could not
take place and notice could not be issued.
It is noticed that neither the matter has been considered at the
pre-notice state nor the notice has been directed to be issued and
served on the respondent. However, the respondents are present in
Court represented through a counsel.
In view of the above, the application is allowed. The matter is
taken up for hearing.
CO.PET. 140/2014
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate
enter appearance for the respondent company and contend that there
are disputes between the Directors of the respondents company
pending before the Company Law Board. Two sets of respondents
counsel submit that there is a restriction on the holding of the Board
Meeting.
Let a reply to the petition be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 9th September, 2014.
CA 467/2014
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this
application at this stage.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 11/2014
KANODIA TECHNOPLAST ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikramaditya Bhaskar, Advocate
for the applicant.
versus
K.P.POUCHES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CA 1014/2014
The present application has been moved by Cryogenic Food
Processing Pvt. Ltd. seeking desealing of the premises bearing No.46,
Rama Road, New Delhi. As per the applicant, the applicant has taken
the premises on rent on 15.09.2007. The applicant contends that the
applicant has no connection with the company in liquidation and the
company in liquidation was a tenant in the premises and had vacated
the premises on 31.03.2007. Learned counsel for the applicant
contends that some goods and machineries of the company in
liquidation are lying in the premises.
Issue notice.
Mr. S.B. Gautam, Official Liquidator accepts notice.
Let a response to the application be filed within a period of one
week. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within three days thereafter.
List on 20th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014/st
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 101/2013
PREMIER INFRA-CON PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashish Middha, Advocate.
versus
.. ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CA 1012/2014
By the present application, the applicant seeks directions for
taking on record the amended valuation report and amended scheme
of amalgamation. As per the petitioner, on 01.05.2013, at the time of
final hearing of the matter the application seeking to place on record
the amended scheme was not disposed of.
Issue notice to the Regional Director and the Official
Liquidator.
Mr. Atma Sah, Asstt. ROC, accepts notice on behalf of the
Registrar of Companies.
Mr. S.V. Gautam, Official Liquidator accepts notice.
Let a response to the application be filed within a period of four
weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List on 27th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014/st
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 72/1997
IN THE MATTER OF M/S MORADABAD SYNTEX LTD
..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Yukti Gupta, proxy for Mr.
Ashish Makhija, Advocate for
Official Liquidator.
Mr. R.K. Raizada, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocates for the
applicant.
versus
. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Abhishek Anand with Mr.
Naveen Kumar, Advocates for IDBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
CA 1004/2014 (under Rule 6 & 9 of the Companies Court Rules)
Issue notice to IDBI as well as Official Liquidator.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
IDBI.
Ms. Yukti Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Official
Liquidator.
Copy of the application be supplied to counsel for non-
applicants within two days.
Let reply to the said application be filed within four weeks.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter.
List on 25th July, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014/st
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 306/2011
VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anup Jain, Advocate.
versus
PREM POWER CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Navroop Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Request for an adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner,
which is not opposed by the respondent.
Renotify on 6th August, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CCP(CO.) 8/2014 & CA 1010/2014
JAI GOPAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. V.N. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
MADHU GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 05.05.2014
Subject to the orders of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice, list before
some other Bench on 9th May, 2014.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 05, 2014
st
