1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court approves modification of merger scheme due to property details error. Amendments granted to ensure accuracy.</h1> The Court allowed the applicants' request for modification of a sanctioned merger and demerger scheme due to incorrect immovable property details. The ... - Issues involved: Modification of a sanctioned scheme for merger and demerger due to incorrect details of immovable properties.Modification of Scheme Details: The applicants sought modification of the scheme sanctioned for the merger of KICPL with SHK and the demerger of Business Support Centre Division of SHK into Keva Constructions. The correction was required in the details of immovable properties due to incorrect information provided in the schedule of the scheme. The applicants clarified that the basic fabric of the scheme remains unchanged, and only the details of the properties needed correction. The valuation report and financial position were based on these properties, which were to be transferred to Keva Constructions. The applicants assured that the correction would not alter the valuation, as confirmed by the Chartered Accountant's report.Approval and Objection: The learned counsel for the applicants highlighted that the correction was necessary due to inadvertence, and the Regional Director had no objection to the proposed modification. The applications indicated a change in asset details with the requisite Board Resolution in place. No opposition was raised during the initial scheme approval process, indicating the acceptance of the modification.Judgment and Amendment: The Court allowed the applications in line with the requested modifications outlined in prayer clauses (a) and (b). The amendment to the scheme details was directed to be completed within four weeks from the date of the judgment.