Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (11) TMI 1522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions of the Companies Act, 1956, having a factory at Erode involved in the manufacture of sugar. Originally, there was a company by name M/s.Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited, incorporated in the year 1982, owned the sugar factory at Erode. The said M/s.Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited also set up a new factory in the State of Orissa. Subsequently, the factory at Erode was declared as a sick industrial company and with a view to protect the same, a Scheme of Arrangement was conceived. According to the said Scheme of Arrangement, the factory at Orissa would be owned and run by M/s.Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited and the Erode undertaking would be transferred to the petitioner. The Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by this Court in C.P.Nos. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iquidator. This was followed by a further reply dated 14.7.2014, which appears to be a little more elaborate referring to the order passed by the Company Court approving the Scheme of Arrangement. 6. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a notice dated 21.8.2017  on similar lines as that of the notice dated 13.6.2014, to which, the petitioner submitted their reply dated 28.8.2017. This appears to be a very elaborate reply than the earlier two replies. Once again, the first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 31.10.2017 reiterating the earlier stand that the petitioner is liable to pay the dues, failing which, the first respondent informed the petitioner that appropriate action will be initiated under Section 11 of the Ce....