-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2010 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1167 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 677 OF 2006 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1042 OF 2006 SAKSHI Ideal Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellants versus Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd. ... Respondents WITH APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2010 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1165 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 676 OF 2006 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1041 OF 2006 SAKSHI Ideal Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellants versus Kotak Mahindra Securities Ltd. ... Respondents Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Simil Purohit, Mr. Tapan Deshpande, instructed by M/s. Amarchand & Mangaldas & S.A. Shroff & Co. for the respondents in Appeal Nos. 541 and 542 of 2010. -2- WITH APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1169 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 776 OF 2006 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1043 OF 2006 SAKSHI Ideal Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellants versus Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd. ... Respondents WITH APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1168 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 777 OF 2006 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1044 OF 2006 SAKSHI Ideal Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellants versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ... Respondents Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Simil Purohit and Mr. Prashant Beri, instructed by M/s. Beri & Co. , for the respondents in Appeal Nos. 146 and 147 of 2008. In all matters: Mr. Amit A. Patankar, Director of appellant, in person. -3- CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2010. P.C. The above appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge dated 9th February, 2007 and 15th February, 2007. So far as Appeal Nos. 146 and 147 are concerned, they are in connection with the arrangement between Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Limited and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. As regards Appeal Nos. 541 and 542 of 2010 are concerned, they are in connection with the arrangement between Kotak Mahindra Securities Limited and Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Limited. The learned single Judge by his detailed orders has sanctioned the arrangement and the objection of the present appellant was over ruled. The appellant, party in person (hereinafter the appellant), has challenged the said orders passed in the aforesaid Company Petitions in these appeals. 2. It is the say of the appellant that Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd. is a non-existent company as it is an unregistered Company for which he has placed on record information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Assistant Registrar of Companies/CPIO dated 22nd January, 2009 that there is no company with the Corporate Identity Number (CIN) U67120MH2001PLC134050 (according to CIN provided by the applicant in the -4- application), but there is a company viz. Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Limited with CIN U 67120MH1995PLC134050. On the other hand, Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents states that on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd., information was sought from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs wherein the information is given to the effect that though there have been changes in the name and status of the company originally registered under the name “Kotak Mahindra Capital Corporation (Company with Unlimited Liability)”, there is only one and same legal entity throughout and its current name is “Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd., as per the records. Dr. Tulzapurkar has placed on record the letter received from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 19th July, 2010. 3. It is required to be noted that even otherwise the appellant has not taken any objection before the learned single Judge in this behalf. Apart from the same, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is neither a creditor nor a shareholder or in any way concerned with the Company in any manner. The learned single Judge has also considered the aspect as to whether the appellant is having locus standi to intervene in the matter. The learned single Judge accordingly overruled the objection raised by the appellant for want of locus standi as well as on merits. The learned single Judge in paragraph 4 observed thus: -5- “4. In reply, Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection and challenged locus of the intervenor to object to the scheme contending that the objector is neither a shareholder nor has any concern with either of the companies in the scheme. He has filed an affidavit of one Mr. Jaimin Bhatt, Director of the Resulting Company bringing current position, as regards registrati9on of the Company having name “Kotak Mahindra Capital Limited” i.e. The Resulting Company bearing a CIN- U67120MH2001PLC134050 and brought on record that on the website of the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, wrong information was placed showing three companies having identical name carrying different CIN. He further submits that there is no other company other than the one mentioned in the affidavit. The said factual position is affirmed by the learned counsel for the Regional Director.” 4. Dr. Tulzapurkar further submits that the learned single Judge, after considering the material on record and considering the fact that the majority shareholders had approved the arrangement, sanctioned the arrangement and, therefore, this Court has limited power to intervene in such a matter. The appellant is unable to point out as to how he has got locus standi as he is neither a creditor nor a shareholder or in any concerned with the Company in any manner. Not only that the appellant has already filed a suit against Kotak Mahindra Securities Ltd. which he has withdrawn unconditionally. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the Appeals and the Chamber Summons are accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.