The Regional Director Ministry Of … vs Mphasis Limited on 26 November, 2009

---»-m-mm --nun LUUKI $,J?t,'Kiu<i\£ATAKA mere coum or KARNATAKA met»: COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH count or mmamm Hm:-1 swun-

IN T!-H Hlfi CW8»? 0? mmwrzum AT  RE

mun ms um 26"' my ear rzovmzn 2009 

PRESENT

mm Imus»: mi. avsmzcz x L   % T 1  

AN?

'rm I-m<r*s1:.z !!R.JU8TIGE_<_ARHVI$t'B f °  

om mas or %%2%"'e§_%': M

1. 'rho Regional Director  '

   .  ss.3:.nmma.z»m -
 '»_samI*rHs.ma% 5.. xanmaas : 31135335 SHMFF
' " & CO. ""'  }

southarn Rsg."§.ea_V '_'-- ._ I
shastri shaman   .. 1   
5"' float, ::'26,_Hd'&ti§u»s"-.rg£w.1__ " _ "
Chennai 61.'3t'3._ti£!§;_  ~ 

who  9;'  _' 
Karnataka' ' _   " __
xmdriya V' sedan  ;a§£ng'ala

Ba::qa1o.::eV.._V V .. APP£hmNTs

 
A Uz:y¢gn::y_ .i'rg:arporata6 mach: tha

V VV _ Compizy fiat", ""1956 and

its; ragiatoxw oflim

:'1T30/1;' I-roan: Kain road
- _ »1f::mn:f'm:ga.I.n, sangalora 56¢ {:95
_' __xa;'rzetaka '

. . . REPONBEHT

$».@FU!€Sfi: 1' or

6?'



mum. W lu-mnI1rs'u-:m;m-sawnarrl-=&..-\iW"K9ffii'""'7'"?:'"WIW!!fl'I-HRH-'-'-"V1Ii#fl'-HVUKI -ur :umwm~n1m' -'!"llu1"I-LUUIU U?' Mum-A'mxA HKEH t'..';UUl{"i UP smtcmnmxm -?'~lIuv!-1'l.-.-.£..1t=-.t:v

THIS OSA 18 FILSD U/8. 391$?) ARD SECTION
(83 268 OF THE CHPANIIS ACT, 1956 Aflhlflfi? T33

ORDER DA'£'Efl 19.6.2037 335839 B'! THE LEARNED 

SIRGBE JUDGE IN COMPANY PSTITIOR 310.121/2006.

ms osa comm; on ma HEARING 11113 _f 

HANJUNATH J... DEBIVERED THE FOLLDWIRG:

JUDG-HEN'!

The short question  a ti_aeas_ '- f:§v£"'~' 

canaidaration is,  an  
of a. Cowany, the  '4 in
requi red to pay . .   *    "t':

consequential    share

capital cf tiimv  

2. The fists  tn» this case are
stgstagi   V  _____ 

rgslofsngdsaiiizis is a Cemany incaxpozated

  at the Indian Companies

 .. its registered affiae at

  Kean: Kain Rand, xoxamangala,
 95. Th: main objvwt cf the Comany
 manufacture aithax: for its own use «:31:

 "£uVrQr male in India or for export autside India

aw



awwn 5"\.Il "Mn:-wntnnm '!r"n\.'.VI-W -'L~é|4Jl'J!€"'  '9'II"K§!"'i L§3'U4Kl WP KARNATA'KA      

shaxnholtiazzs to max gpxaval to the Schema.

aacardingly, a meeting was convened 

subsequently, in Company appJ.i::ati<m_ 
tho Court: approved the schema of 
with the transferee 

at Bombay by order datVcat14_'.2.2'«..?G0': :5; 

Petition 663/206   
Application 937/2t3'f:J<_'I"ig  giafisfaror
cawnny was r§9'13te;:V§;i?;:Rfagistxax csf
companies,  f.~.;ni  r§ £ition 121/06,

the  ttzotice to the
appo11:§:£  i.',_;;%f:*V§¥',.Vf;;3.:::.L.,~;'<V:bja<:tisons, it any

tn: the  

 . A'  filed ohjectiane stating
  .AV.a;a.§.$nount of azmlgaszaaticn, the

  _ t:#22:¥ta_é2a3;:3.E"~~'é§@any wmzld he dissalvad and the
 cmany would exist. an aecatmt of
   or hmalgamaticm, the authorised
aafiital of tha respondent-transferee comany

A ' ' gats incraaaad and humid an the inmwasa of

authcsriaed czwital, ths xeaptsndent cwwany has

$2



'III-'§tr'nuf my

"""""'""""'" "'"""" U-'UK'? ;G'F~..KARNATm<A HiGH come": OF KARNATAM HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or 2(ARNAm:c.A rmm I...uuz£.V_tha '  "befora um is that.

in vim. .. gt   Clause 3 of tho

   xzelivandentz {Sammy in

rofia ....   pay the nnquisita

 £003 on account at the

 z  amthezisad capital fees clue to
  the tranafcrar company. To anppart:
 the learned counsel has relied

 the juagmt at the Hermie Supreme Cmzzt

V. in Bmiflfiflbl CAPITILL HARIETS EIHIEED "' 'F5 *-

(if,



ww: \mv»\ M saw: 'I\l"lI%-I 1r|i¢'!..i\r'I

* I"-H ' **--VUIUA ,.\-if zxmmwnannn l"HUl'| LUUKI U?" KARNAEEAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR'

SECURITIES AND $XC¥%3 BOARD OF INDIA AND

amnmns ruportmfi in 2007 AIR saw ej14.

Eurthar, xalying upon head nete A at 
judgment, ha contends that, on   éf'   
increase in authorised shalt; 

respondent-Canxpany dun ,t_o bf  'V

txanafezox: company with  §i§.1f§.'e.V -I is
incraasn in thfi  cafivitfi, that
:mapc>nsiont«-cownny   pay the
rogistrati-cm_"    in schedule
x (3) of £§s{¢§§pun£s§fi§s§§ *%

   contends

that  .1.-.1;a " liéarixefl Eompany Judge has not

   'Vfiiiér in interfaring with this
 Company Judge has czlearly

'    18 oz! the azdaz: relying upcn that
 of other courts. Acccrdinq to him,
  1-aliad upcm by the learned
 fax the appellant is 11:31: applicable to

 ' " ths fiacsts and czixcurastanccs at the case since

the Supreme Court had no mcniun 4:6: consider

2
/

$5



"""'""" '" ''""''"'"''''"'''*'' W-3"" I-UWT Q9-KfiRNATAKfl i~ilGiri count or KARNATAKA HIGH coum or- KARNATAKA mun Luuau ur mmmmm maul": e.........

the cause at manger: read with schedule 16(3) or

the Cotwaniea Act. According ta him, 

quastian raised by the appellant 
been answered by several High cou:t§V:"_:~-§§._!m:i.::~ 
same nae net been challengnfé-i  ;t'haB

Diracter at said etetae.  

requests the court to  the"

8 . On perueel o£_V_§1:i_aVV  won

by the   we
are of the   iiwolved in the
said case  izxereiead in this man
are enhvfieifi '  Therefore. the
e£oros'§nfi§.e_   mt calm to the aid

  .....