Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is stated, by referring to Section 129(1) read with Section 129(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, that the standalone financial statement/ standalone balance sheet of the petitioner company as prepared and filed is considered as its balance sheet and consolidated balance sheet is not considered as the balance sheet of the petitioner company. Preparation and filing of the consolidated financial statement is in addition to the standalone financial statement, hence the provisions of Section 129(3) of the Companies Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.208 of 2020 dt.11-08-2022 2013 can, in no manner, be interpreted so as to mean that the Respondent No. 2 is entitled to consider the consolidated financial statements of the petitioner (as opposed to its standalone financial statements) in order to evaluate and determine eligibility of the petitioner under Clause 4.5(D) of the NIT. It is stated that it is a well settled legal position, settled by a catena of judicial precedents, that a company is a separate and distinct legal entity from its subsidiaries having independent corporate personality. Reference has also been made to Section 19 of the Companies Act, which substantively bars a subsidiary company from holding shares in its holding company either by itself or through its nominees, and furthermore bars a holding company from allotting or transferring its shares to any of its subsidiary companies, and expressly declares any such allotment or transfer of shares of a company to its subsidiary company to be void. Thus, it is submitted that the clear legislative intent is to maintain separate operational identity of a holding Patna High Court CWJC No.208 of 2020 dt.11-08-2022 company and its subsidiaries and thereby preserve the respective shareholders' control over them. It is also submitted that Section 129 of the Companies Act, 2013 is merely a compliance requirement & an extension of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 1956 for providing information about the group of companies. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Zoom Developers (P) Ltd. & Others, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 563, paragraph no. 31 whereof is reproduced herein below:-