2016 (12) TMI 1835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Co., for the Appellant. Mr. Rajeev Panday, Mr. Dharma Raj i/b PRS Legal for Respondent No.1. P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This appeal challenges an order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench ("CLB") on the petition of Respondent No.1 under Section 111A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"). Respondent No.1 claims to be a transferee of 5,00,000 preferenc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... members accordingly. 3 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order of the CLB is vitiated by an error of law. She submits that in pursuance of a scheme of compromise between the company, its members and creditors, Respondent No.2 agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 350 Lacs in lieu of the preference shares held by it. Learned Counsel submits that this amounts to redemption of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the preference shareholders of the Appellantcompany. There is nothing to suggest that the compromise amounts to redemption of the preference shares or conversion of the amount due thereon (or any other reduced amount) into a corporate debt. Respondent No.2, even after the sanction of the scheme, continues to be a preference shareholder with agreement to accept 70% of the face value of the redeema....