NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 102, 105, 133, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 230(3), 230(5), 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 6, 7, 8, 8(2), 10, 12, 14 OF COMPANIES (COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENTS AND AMALGAMATIONS) RULES, 2016


Saibaba Trading Private Limited And Ors. Vs. Mukund Fashion Private Limited, (2020) 08 NCLT CK 0020

NCLT allowed the joint application filed by the Transferor Companies and Transferee Company under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking sanction of this Tribunal to the Composite Scheme of Merger and Amalgamation of Transferor Company-1"], Transferor Company-2"] with Transferee Company"] with effect from the appointed date as mentioned in the Scheme. While allowing the application NCLT held that in compliance of sub-section (5) of Section 230 and Rule 8 of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016, the Applicant Companies shall send a notice in Form No. CAA.3 along with disclosures mentioned under Rule 6, to, (i) the Central Government through the Regional Director, Northwestern Region, (ii) the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, (iii) the Income Tax Authorities concerned and (iv) the Official Liquidator, stating that representations, if any, to be made by them shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which it shall be presumed that they have no objection to make on the proposed scheme. The said notices shall be sent forthwith by registered post or by speed post or by courier or by had delivery or by an email at the office of the authority as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Companies (CAA) Rules, 2016. The aforesaid authorities, who desire to make any representations under sub-section (5) of Section 230, shall send the same to the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which, it will be deemed that they have no representation to make on the proposed arrangement.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 9, 13(1)(B), 13(1)(C), 14, 14(1), 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Maloo Bhatt And Co. Vs. Pet Metal Private Limited, (2020) 08 NCLT CK 0024 NCLT allowed the Application filed by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,2016, to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor for the amount of debt related to invoice raised for audit fees and other professional work. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that the amount of debt is more than Rs. 1 lacs which is not barred by law of limitation. The said amount has not been paid and no plausible defence has been put forward by Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has also provided MCA Data of the Corporate Debtor. The application is otherwise complete and defect free. It is also noted that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the IRP whose consent is on record. Hence, he can be appointed to conduct Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Accordingly, we admit this application and order.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 133, 230, 231, 232 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND RULE 3, 3(2) OF THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2016

Image
Kalyankari Suppliers Private Limited And Ors Vs. Shiv Coal Benification And Power Private Limited, (2020) 05 NCLT CK 0015 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 230 to 232 read with Companies (Arrangements, Compromises and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 in relation to Scheme of Amalgamation (For brevity "Scheme") proposed between the Applicants. While allowing the application NCLT held that taking into consideration the application and the documents filed herewith, we propose to issue the directions with respect to calling, convening and holding the meeting of Equity Shareholders, Partners, secured and unsecured creditors or dispensing the same.
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9, 9(5)(1), 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 31(1), 33 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

Image
Centuary Road Transport Pvt. Ltd Vs. Tyson Retail Services Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0044 NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the IB Code for initiation of the CIRP of Corporate Debtor.   While allowing the application NCLT held that in view of Section 8, after the receiving of the demand notice delivered under Section 8(1) of the IB Code the Corporate Debtor is required to send the reply to demand notice or raised the pre-existing dispute or show the documents regarding the payment of the unpaid debt but here as we noticed that the Corporate Debtor has neither raised the pre-existing dispute nor filed any document to show that the amount has been paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. If we shall consider the case in hand in the light of aforesaid provision then we find that herein the case in hand neither pre-existing dispute is raised nor payment of the unpaid Operation Debt is made, the application is complete and the ...
Read more