TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Sandeep Singhi, Advocate for Singhi & Co, Advocate for the Respondent. Oral Order (1) The present application is filed by the applicantCompany for substituting Mishapar Investments Limited in place of Sicom Limited in Company Petition No.34 of 2009, which is pending for hearing before this Court. (2) Heard Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.A.S.Vakil, learned advocate for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Act. It is further averred that thereafter meetings were convened on 04.02.2009 and Company Petition No.34 of 2009 was filed by the applicantCompany under Section 391 (1) of the Companies Act seeking sanction to the scheme of compromise duly approved by the statutory majority of its secured creditors. It appears that the petition was admitted and was ordered to be advertised in four different ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2010 allowed the appeal filed by Sicom Limited and dismissed the appeal of the applicant Company. (6) It appears that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court came to be challenged by the applicant Company before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.7887/2010 and 7896/2010. (7) It furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Furthermore, the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Company Judge of the Gujarat High Court to consider sanctioning of the Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement proposed by the appellant under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Civil Appeals and I.A. Nos.2 and 5 of 2012 are disposed of accordingly." In view of the afo....