Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1999 (3) TMI 474 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court Denies Request for Detailed Valuation Report in Amalgamation Scheme The Court dismissed the application seeking details of the valuation report and exchange ratio calculations in the context of an amalgamation scheme. The ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court Denies Request for Detailed Valuation Report in Amalgamation Scheme

                          The Court dismissed the application seeking details of the valuation report and exchange ratio calculations in the context of an amalgamation scheme. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to the detailed mathematical calculations as they are technical and complex matters best left to experts. The Court found the valuation report provided to be sufficient, reaffirming the fairness and reasonableness of the process followed in approving the scheme of amalgamation.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Approval of the scheme of amalgamation.
                          2. Entitlement to details of the valuation report and exchange ratio calculations.
                          3. Allegations of delay and abuse of process by the applicant.
                          4. Relevance of mathematical calculations in the context of amalgamation.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation:
                          The case involves a petition filed by Asian Coffee Ltd. (A.C.L.) and three other transferor companies for the approval of a scheme of amalgamation with Consolidated Coffee Ltd. (Conscoffee). The scheme was approved by the majority of shareholders in a meeting held on 23-10-1998, as per the direction of the Court. The Chairman's report indicated that the scheme was adopted without any modification, despite objections from a few shareholders, including the applicant.

                          2. Entitlement to Details of the Valuation Report and Exchange Ratio Calculations:
                          The applicant, a shareholder of A.C.L., filed an application seeking details of the valuation report and the calculations used to determine the exchange ratio. The applicant argued that as a shareholder, he is entitled to know how the exchange ratio was arrived at and that the details are necessary to file a reply to the counter filed by A.C.L. The applicant contended that the valuation report provided did not include the necessary details of the calculations.

                          3. Allegations of Delay and Abuse of Process by the Applicant:
                          A.C.L. opposed the application, arguing that it was not maintainable and was filed with the intention of delaying the approval of the amalgamation scheme. A.C.L. claimed that the valuation report was already explained to the shareholders during the meeting and that the exchange ratio was determined by expert valuers. A.C.L. further alleged that the applicant, being a competitor, sought to extract sensitive information for competitive advantage and was abusing the court process.

                          4. Relevance of Mathematical Calculations in the Context of Amalgamation:
                          The Court considered whether the applicant was entitled to the detailed mathematical calculations of the exchange ratio. Section 393(1)(a) of the Companies Act requires that a statement setting forth the terms of the compromise or arrangement and explaining its effect be sent with the notice of the meeting. The Court referred to precedents, including judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which clarified that the requirement under Section 393 does not extend to providing detailed mathematical calculations. The Court emphasized that the valuation of shares is a technical and complex problem best left to experts in the field of accountancy. The Court noted that the valuation report was prepared by recognized firms of chartered accountants and had been accepted by the majority of shareholders.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the detailed mathematical calculations of the exchange ratio, as such details are technical and complex, and their determination should be left to experts. The Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it without costs, reaffirming that the valuation report provided was sufficient and that the process followed was fair and reasonable.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found