( 1 ) THE six companies have presented these company applications under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking appropriate directions fo. convening of the meetings of the shareholders and creditors of the respective companies and for dispensation with the holding of such meetings. The office has raised objection regarding maintainability of a single/common application by six companies which reads as under. As per Section 391 (l) (b ). . . "on the application of the company or of any creditor or member of the company", a single application with separate number is not maintainable in respect of six companies.

( 2 ) IN reply to the said office objections, learned Counsels for the applicants requested the office to place the matter before the Court to hear regarding office objections. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Court. As the objection raised by the office was purely a question of law regarding maintainability of a common application by several companies who are parties to a scheme of arrangement or a scheme of amalgamation, notice was ordered to the Registrar of companies to elicit his views in the matter. The Court also directed Sri aditya, the learned Counsel to assist the Court in deciding the aforesaid matter.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsels for the applicants, the learned counsel for the Registrar of Companies and Sri Aditya, the learned counsel. It is pointed out that the office objection is based on a decision of this Court in the case of Electro Carbonium Private Limited. A learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with the question whether both the Companies can maintain a joint petition or should file two separate petitions has held as under. "having regard to Section 394-A of the Companies Act which requires that on any application made under Section 391 or section 394, notice shall be taken out to the Central Government, it is indicative that both the companies which are distinct entities must take out that notice to the Central Government. Therefore, I am inclined to take the view that a common petition is not maintainable but two separate petitions must be filed by the transferee and transferor companies though for the same purpose. This view is further strengthened by the provision to clause (b) (vi) to sub-section (1) of Section 394, which contemplates that no order for amalgamation and any scheme in connection therewith may be sanctioned by the Court, unless the Court receives a report from the Company Law Board or the Registrar that the affairs of the company have not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members or to public interest. In other words, the proviso contemplates that there must be a report in respect of each of the companies, in regard to the management of its aifairs, until the date of amalgamation. In this view of the matter, the office objection is upheld and the applicants are directed to make two separate applications for amalgamation under Section 391 of the Companies Act".

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsels for the applicants submitted though that is the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, another Single judge of this Court in the case of Kirloskar Electric Company Limited, bangalore v Nil, has held as under. "30. . . . . HENCE, in an application made under Section 394 of the act, the Court will be in a position to make effective orders as provided under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) on the matters enumerated therein which would be binding on the transferor company, its members and creditors. Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of Section 394 of the Act are referable only to transferee company. The Court cannot bind them to do things enumerated under the aforesaid clauses unless they are before this Court by filing firstly, an application under section 391 of the Act inter alia seeking a direction to convene the meeting of the members and creditors of the company. In the said application, the com