CHEMBRA ORCHARD PRODUCE LIMITED Vs. NIL

JUDGEMENT

(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.