IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C..P. No. 153 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 2nd February, 2011. IN THE MATTER OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OF Super Mart One Property Management Services Private Limited Transferor/Petitioner Company No.1 With Beverly Park Operation and Maintenance Services Private Limited Transferee/Petitioner Company No. 2 Present: Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] In this petition under Section 391and Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, duly supported by affidavits, the petitioner – Companies seek dispensation of the meetings of their shareholders and creditors for sanctioning of the Scheme of Amalgamation. It is averred in the petition that the Transferor Company has 06 shareholders, whereas the Transferee Company has 4 share- holders only, as per lists Annexures P-10 and P-12 respectively. They have consented to the Scheme of Amalgamation vide their consent letters [Annexure P-11(Colly) and P-13(Colly)]. It is further averred that the petitioner-Companies have no secured or un-secured creditors as certified by the Chartered Accountants vide certificate [Annexure P-14[Colly]. M/s Baverly Park Operation and Maintenance Services Private Limited – the Transferee Company is the 100% subsidiary of M/s Super Mart One Property Management Services Private Limited – the Transferor Company as 100% equity shares are held by the Transferor Company as per list of share-holders [Annexure P-12]. In this view of the matter, holding of the meeting of the share-holders of the petitioner Companies and/or publication of the notices for the said meeting, is ordered to be dispensed with. Since there are no secured or unsecured creditors of the petitioner- Companies, as such no orders are required to be passed to dispense with the convening of their meetings. The first motion petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioners shall be at liberty to move the Second Motion Petition. February 02, 2011 ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE