PATRAKAR PRAKASHAN (P.) LTD., IN RE Vs. ABC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel Shri A.S. Gaharwar. On 28-3-1997 this Court passed the order that the question for consideration is whether an amalgamation includes in its fold an arrangement or compromise between more than one companies

(2.) User of words in section 391 compromise or arrangement led to the question which is being considered. Sec. 392 of the Act which gives the power to the High Court to enforce compromise and arrangements also mentions that where a High Court makes an order under section 391 sanctioning a compromise or an arrangement in respect of a company, it shall have power to supervise the carrying out of the compromise or arrangement; and may, at the time of making such order or at any time thereafter, give such directions in regard to any matter of make such modifications in the compromise or arrangement as it may consider necessary for the proper working of the compromise or arrangement. The word 'amalgamation' does not find place in this section. Sec. 394 which is a provision for facilitating reconstruction and amalgamation of companies speaks for amalgamation. Sec. 394 is as extracted below :

(3.) Definition of 'amalgamation' in the Income-tax Act is for the purpose of the said Act. It cannot be lifted and be read in the Companies Act as it would amount to interpretation by lifting.