9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 139/1, Hosur Main Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-95. The main object of the company is to manufacture either for its own use or for sale in India or for export outside India computer systems, computer peripherals and accessories, etc. The authorised share capital of the respondent-company as on August 18, 2006 is 20 crores equity share of Rs. 10 each amounting to Rs. 200 crores. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital is 161,859,420 equity shares of Rs. 10 each totalling to Rs. 1,618,594,200. M/s. E. D. S. Electronic Data Systems (India) P. Ltd., had also been established with the same object. The share capital of the said company as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant herein has been rejected by the learned company judge by his order dated June 19, 2007 (Mphasis Ltd., In re [2008] 141 Comp. Cas. 558 (Kar.)). Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the company court, the present appeal is filed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Naganand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant before us is that, in view of Schedule X, clause 3 of the Companies Act, the respondent-company is required to pay the requisite registration/filing fees on account of the increase of authorised capital fees due to merger of the transferor company. To support his arguments, learned counsel has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. Therefore, the aforesaid decision would not come to the aid of the appellant. 9. The learned company judge in paragraph 18 of the order has clearly held that there is no necessity for the respondent-company to pay additional fee or stamp duty since there is no obligation or reason for the two amalgamated companies to pay duty on the same authorised capital on which they have already paid. 10. Sri Naganand has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Regional Director v. Cavin Plastics and Chemicals P. Ltd. reported in [2008] 141 Comp. Cas. 475. The question now raised in this appeal was the question that was considered by the Madras High Court. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as herein under (page 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
