Gujarat High Court High Court

Metrochem vs Unknown on 21 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Metrochem vs Unknown on 21 September, 2011
Author: K.A.Puj,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMA/108/2009	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 108 of 2009
 

In


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 22 of 2008
 

With


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 109 of 2009
 

In


 

COMPANY
PETITION No. 23 of 2008
 

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


 

METROCHEM
INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

.
- Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
SN SOPARKAR with MR SANDEEP S. SINGHI for SINGHI & CO for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR HARIN P RAVAL
for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 25/03/2009 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

The
applicant Companies are the original petitioners in Company Petition
Nos.22/2008 and 23/2008 respectively and have taken out the Judge’s
Summons seeking permission to substitute the Scheme, being Annexure
‘D’ to Company Petition Nos.22 and 23/2008 with the amended modified
scheme being Annexure ‘L’ to the Company Application No.108/2009 and
Annexure ‘C’ to Company Application No.109/2009. The applicants
have also prayed for sanction of the amended modified scheme being
Annexure ‘L’ and ‘C’ to the respective applications and seeking a
declaration that the same are binding on the applicant company, the
equity shareholders, the secured creditors and unsecured creditors
of the applicant Companies, namely Baroda Textile Effects Limited,
the resulting company and Metrochem Industries Limited, the demerged
company and all the persons concerned under the amended modified
scheme.

Having
heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S.N. Soparkar and Mr. Sandeep
S. Singhi, the learned Advocate for the applicants and having
considered the facts stated and averments made in the application,
Prayer ‘(a)’ is granted and accordingly the applicant is permitted
to substitute the scheme by the modified scheme. As far as Prayer
‘(b)’ is concerned, the same will be considered at the time of
hearing of the main Company Petitions, namely Company Petitions
Nos.22 and 23 respectively.

Subject
to the aforesaid observation and clarification, both these Company
Applications are accordingly disposed of. Office is directed to
keep the papers of both these Company Applications alongwith Company
Petitions Nos.22 and 23/2008 for further hearing on April 1, 2009.

(K.A.

Puj, J.)

Caroline

   

Top