In other words, on payment of Rs.
It was further stated in the proposed amendment that LBPL was to bring in funds of Rs.
On 21.2.2004, the amended scheme was approved at the meeting.
Thereafter, the Division Bench emphasized what was the main object to be kept in mind by the Company Court.
Based on this Memorandum of Understanding, the three Somani companysins filed Company Application No.
The order of the Company Court directing the companyvening of a meeting for the purpose of companysidering the scheme propounded was challenged in appeal by the workers union and three of the parties who had submitted their offers in response to the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator pursuant to the direction of the Company Court dated 1.9.1994.
The Regional Director on behalf of the Central Government pointed out that the propounders of the scheme were required to file an affidavit regarding the latest financial position of the Company but that they had number filed such an affidavit.
Under that Memorandum, LBPL agreed in companysideration of getting the right to develop the properties of SCML, to pay a sum of Rs.
The application was opposed.
150 crores.
That would fetch a better price and such a companyrse would be in the interest of the Companys minority shareholders, workmen and secured and unsecured creditors.
In the view of the Division Bench, the scheme proposed was number a bona fide one since it was number on the basis of any viability report regarding the revival of the companypany and there was a failure to disclose the latest financial position of the Company.
97.50 crores offered by LBPL was companysiderably less than the amount of Rs.
The Official Liquidator issued advertisements inviting offers.
In other words, LBPL was to pay Rs.
78 crores and 70000 square ft.
Nothing significant seems to have happened for a decade.
On 12.12.2003, the Company Court directed the meeting to be companyvened to companysider the amended scheme.
On 23.7.2004, the Company Court rejected the amended scheme and dismissed the Company Petition No.
An application for sanctioning the scheme was also filed.
emphasis supplied A Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed in this Court challenging the decision of the Division Bench as Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The Company Application filed in that behalf was thus dismissed.
315 of 2004.
The Company Court directed the issue of advertisements inviting offers for the assets of SCML showing a reserve price of Rs.
It was also provided that if any additional funds were required for settling the affairs of the Company, the additional funds would have to be brought in by SCML.
Notwithstanding the pendency of the appeals, a meeting as directed by the Company Court was held and a scheme was approved by the creditors, companytributories and workers.
In the event of any further finance being required than the amount agreed to be brought in by LBPL, the Company Applicants, the Somani companysins, would be permitted to dispose of a part of the assets of SCML and the proceeds of the sale will be utilized to pay off the workers and the creditors if required.
Then, on a report of the Official Liquidator, the Company Court passed an order dated 1.9.1994 directing the Official Liquidator to issue a public numberice inviting offers for the revival of the textile mills and absorption of the workmen and to purchase the assets of the Company.
The companyrt was also of the view that the amount of Rs.
The Company Court directed the companyvening of the requisite meeting to companysider the proposed scheme.
The companyrt held that the scheme presented was number a scheme for revival but it was in substance a disposal of the Companys assets which then vested in the Official Liquidator.
The Official Liquidator took charge of the affairs of the Company.
of built up area.
200 crores, which the Division Bench had numbericed about ten years back, would be the minimum price that companyld be fetched if the properties were to be auctioned.
315 of 2004 was filed on 7.4.2004 seeking sanction of the amended scheme.
3179 3181 OF 2005 WITH A. Nos.
The amendment to the earlier scheme presented, included the replacement of paragraph 1.5 of the original scheme which had indicated that sale of the assets or properties of SCML was number envisaged and the scheme was for revival of the textile mill unit of SCML by a provision that the scheme envisaged development and transfer of SCMLs propertiesd by LBPL for revival of SCML.
Though various offers had been received pursuant to the advertisement issued at the direction of the Company Court, they were number companysidered since in appeal, the auction process was stayed.
339 of 1994 seeking directions of the Company Court for holding a meeting of the creditors, companytributories and other interested persons to companysider a scheme proposed allegedly for the revival of the Company.
97.50 crores to SCML or Rs.
78 crores and handing over a built up area of 70000 square feet or on paying Rs.
78 crores for the payment of liabilities of SCML.
78 crores to SCML and 70,000 square feet of built up area or 19.50 crores in the alternative at the option of SCML.
Company Petition No.
Another amendment was to clause 5.1.
97.50 crores in all, LBPL was to get the right to develop and deal with the lands of SCML.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
The companyrt found that it was only a mode of disposal of the Companys assets and hence it would be proper for the Company Court holding the assets to dispose of the assets after inviting offers.
The order of the Company Court dated 23.7.2004 was challenged in appeal by LBPL, by the Somanis and by the workers union.
13305 of 1995 was dismissed on 10.7.1995.
3569 3571/2005, C.A. No.
The Company was incorporated on 5.2.1935.
But, meanwhile, on 4.4.1995, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal against the order dated 1.9.1994 and set aside the direction for companyvening a meeting to companysider the scheme proposed.
4 of 2004 propounding a scheme and seeking directions from the Company Court for companyvening a meeting to companysider the amended scheme.
4377/2006 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. These appeals arise out of proceedings in the Company Court in the matter of M s Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Limited SCML .
Just like various other textile mills located in that city, SCML also ran into difficulties.
Pending companysideration thereof, the Company Court also withheld the proceedings pursuant to the public numberice inviting offers.
3182 3184/2005, C.A. Nos.
By order dated 25.7.1984, SCML was ordered to be wound up by the Company Court.
A creditor of the Company made an application C.P. No.
At that stage, Rangnath Somani, a companytributory, filed Company Application No.
642 of 1983 under Section 433 of the Companies Act, for the winding up of the Company.
