2016 (3) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and nGin Technologies Private Limited with eInfochips Limited. 2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that eInfochips Private Limited, the Transferee Company, being the Holding Company, earlier filed Company Application No. 351 of 2015, seeking an order that no separate proceedings in respect of the Transferee Holding company are required to be undertaken under the provisions of Section 391(2) of the Act. This Court, by an order dated 6.11.2015 passed in Company Application No. 351 of 2015, held that no separate proceedings are required to be undertaken by the Transferee Company, being the Holding Company under the provisions of Section 391(2) of the Act. Accordingly, no separate petition on behalf of the Transferee Company is fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve published the notice of the petition in the Gujarati daily newspaper 'Sandesh' and the English daily newspaper 'Indian Express', both having circulation in Ahmedabad, on 25.12.2015. The authorized director of both the petitioner companies has filed separate affidavits dated 15.2.2016 in support of the publication of the advertisements. 7 In response to the notice issued, the Regional Director has filed a common affidavit dated 28.01.2016, making four observations. The first observation made by the Regional Director is with regard to Clause 11 of the Scheme which provides for Accounting Treatment of Assets, Liabilities and Reserves if the Transferee Company. According to the Regional Director, the petitioner-companies have not complied....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....With regard to the second observation, it is submitted that as on 31st March 2015, the Authorized Share Capital of the petitioner nGin Technologies Private Limited is Rs. 1,20,00,000/divided into 12,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/each. It is submitted that the same figure is mentioned in the Scheme and thus, this observation made by the Regional Director is without any basis. 10 With regard to the third observation, it is submitted that the Scheme mentions the correct name of one of the Transferor Companies and there is no mistake in mentioning the name by the petitioner, as suggested by the Regional Director. 11 With regard to the fourth observation, it is submitted that the report of the Regional Director itself shows that pursuant ....