Gujarat High Court High Court

Advent vs Unknown on 8 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Advent vs Unknown on 8 July, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMP/135/2009	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 135 of 2009
 

IN


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 21 of 2009
 

WITH


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 136 of 2009
 

In


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 22 of 2009
 

To


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 138 of 2009 

 

In


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 24 of 2009
 

 
===================================
 

ADVENT
LEASE FINANCE ACTIVITIES LTD - Petitioner
 

Versus
 


- Respondent
 

===================================
 

Appearance
: 
MR
MB GOHIL for Petitioner. 
MR PS CHAMPANERI for
Respondent. 
===================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/07/2010 
COMMON ORAL ORDER

These
four petitions are filed by the petitioners for obtaining sanction
to the Scheme of Amalgamation.

This
Court has admitted the petitions on 22.06.2009 and notice was issued
to the Central Government, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to be
served through Regional Director at Mumbai. Notice was also issued
to the Official Liquidator so far as Transferor Companies are
concerned.

The
Regional Director has filed his affidavit way back on 07.05.2010
raising the grievance that in view of non-cooperation as well as
non-compliance of requirements of this office, he is not in a
position to examine the affairs of the Company in context of the
petitions and proposed Scheme so as to conclude as to whether
petitions are in order. There is no reply filed by the petitioner
Companies to this report of the Regional Director.

The
Official Liquidator has pointed out that pursuant to the notice
issued by this Court, matters were referred to the Chartered
Accountant for investigating the books of accounts of the Transferor
Companies. Three different Chartered Accountants were entrusted
this work. However, it appears that the petitioner Companies are
not co-operating to the Chartered Accountant and grievance is
ventilated by the Chartered Accountant. He also wrote letters to
the Transferor Companies requesting them to depute persons for
discussing the affairs of the Company and for determining the fees
to be paid to the Chartered Accountant. The petitioner Companies
were also requested to furnish the particulars and information in
triplicate to his office, as per the proforma enclosed with the said
letter. It appears that the petitioner Companies are not responding
either to the Chartered Accountant or to the Regional Director.
Even before the Court also, the petitions are fixed for hearing.
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners.

In
the above view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner
Companies are not interested for obtaining the sanction to the
Scheme and hence, all the petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

[K. A. PUJ, J.]

Savariya

   

Top