Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2010 (7) TMI 289 - SC - 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

        Acquirer's Rs.113.62/share offer upheld; regulation 20(12) mandates better of parent and indirect-target announcement values and refines 'acting in concert' test The SC allowed the appeals, holding the acquirer's offer price of Rs.113.62 per share was fairly and lawfully calculated and setting aside the Appellate ...
                        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.

                            Acquirer's Rs.113.62/share offer upheld; regulation 20(12) mandates better of parent and indirect-target announcement values and refines 'acting in concert' test

                            The SC allowed the appeals, holding the acquirer's offer price of Rs.113.62 per share was fairly and lawfully calculated and setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's contrary decision. The Court construed regulation 20(12) to require offering shareholders the better of values on the parent and indirect-target announcement dates, and clarified that "persons acting in concert" is determined by whether the other party was acting in concert at the time of its share purchases, not necessarily at the announcement date. Earlier separate purchases can be brought within the concept by a later express agreement. No order as to costs.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Whether the offer price of Rs. 113.62 per share made by the appellant for the shares of Zenotech Laboratories Ltd. was fair and lawful.
                            2. Whether the offer price should have been at least Rs. 160 per share.
                            3. Proper construction and understanding of the SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Fairness and Lawfulness of the Offer Price of Rs. 113.62 per Share:
                            The primary question was whether the offer price of Rs. 113.62 per share made by Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. in its public announcement dated January 19, 2009, for the acquisition of shares of Zenotech Laboratories Ltd. was fair and lawful. This required a proper construction and understanding of the SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997. The appellant contended that the offer price was determined based on the stock exchange prices of Zenotech shares and complied with regulation 20(4)(c) of the SEBI Takeover Regulations. The price of Rs. 113.62 was the highest among the prices calculated using different methods prescribed by the regulations.

                            2. Requirement of Offer Price of Rs. 160 per Share:
                            The respondents argued that the offer price should not be less than Rs. 160 per share, which was the price paid by Ranbaxy for Zenotech shares in January 2008. They contended that Daiichi and Ranbaxy were "persons acting in concert" as per regulation 2(e) of the Takeover Code, and hence, the price paid by Ranbaxy within the twenty-six weeks prior to the public announcement for Ranbaxy shares (June 16, 2008) should be considered for determining the offer price. The Securities Appellate Tribunal upheld this contention, directing Daiichi to offer Rs. 160 per share.

                            3. Proper Construction and Understanding of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997:
                            The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the SEBI Takeover Regulations, particularly regulations 2(b), 2(e), 10, 11, 14, and 20. The Court noted that the concept of "persons acting in concert" under regulation 2(e)(1) is based on a target company and two or more persons coming together with a shared common objective or purpose of substantial acquisition of shares of the target company. The relationship of "persons acting in concert" is not a fortuitous relationship but comes into being by design and shared common objective or purpose. The Court held that the mere relationship of a holding company and a subsidiary company does not automatically make them "persons acting in concert" unless there is a shared common objective or purpose of substantial acquisition of shares of a target company.

                            The Court also clarified that the deeming provision under regulation 2(e)(2) operates prospectively and not retrospectively. The presumption of "persons acting in concert" arises only from the date two or more persons come together in one of the specified relationships and not from any earlier date. Therefore, Ranbaxy's purchase of Zenotech shares in January 2008 could not be considered as a purchase by a "person acting in concert" with Daiichi.

                            The Court concluded that the offer price of Rs. 113.62 per share was correctly worked out in compliance with regulation 20(4)(c) of the Takeover Code. The judgment of the Securities Appellate Tribunal was found to be unsustainable and was set aside.

                            Conclusion:
                            The appeals were allowed, and the offer price of Rs. 113.62 per share made by Daiichi was deemed fair and lawful. The judgment of the Securities Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the Court emphasized the importance of proper construction and understanding of the SEBI Takeover Regulations. The Court also suggested the inclusion of an "object and purpose" clause in delegated legislations to aid in their proper interpretation.
                            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