SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Bom) 1164

D.G.KARNIK
In the matter of ICICI Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
N. R. – Respondent


JUDGMENT- D.G. KARNIK, J.:---ICICI Limited (hereinafter called as 'Transferror Company') which is the applicant herein has proposed a scheme of arrangement by way of amalgamation/merger into ICICI Bank Limited (hereinafter called as 'Transferee Company').

2. By this petition under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, the applicant seeks a direction to convene a meeting of the equity share holders of the applicant company. No direction is sought to convene a meeting of the creditors or any class of the creditors of the applicant company. It was contended that merger of a company with another involves only an arrangement between the company and its members and as such it is not necessary to order convening of a meeting of the creditors or any class of them and it is not necessary to obtain their consent for the proposed amalgamation.

3. There are three types of arrangements which are common, namely, i) An arrangement between a company and its members; ii) An arrangement between a company and its creditors; and iii) A composite scheme in which the members as well as creditors of the company are part of a compromise or arrangement.

4. It was contended that in the case falling under





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top