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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Court approves Essar-India merger, rejects objections. Vodafone's locus standi questioned. Scheme benefits companies, shareholders, and creditors.</h1> <h3>Essar Telecommunication Holdings (P.) Ltd., In re</h3> The court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation between M/s. Essar Telecommunication Holdings P. Ltd. and M/s. India Securities Ltd., rejecting objections ... Petitions to sanction the scheme of amalgamation - objection raised by the Revenue Department is that as per the assessment for the year 2008-09 completed on December 31, 2010, a demand of 487.46 crores is raised against M/s. Essar Telecommunication Holding Ltd. (ETHL) - also stated that the transferor company is wholly owned subsidiary company of M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., and therefore because of the demand on M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., for the assessment year 2008-09, the scheme be not approved. The objection is also raised that the scheme is being objected to by M/s. Vodafone International BV - no claim against the transferor or transferee company and the demand against the holding company, has also been stayed by the appellate authority, objections of the Income-tax Department to the scheme of amalgamation are therefore rejected. Locus Standi of other person raising objection - Only objection which may be raised by any person in response to notice can be with respect to the legality of the scheme or it being in violation of any law - in the absence of violation of substantial law, merely because certain rights of third party are going to be affected, cannot be a ground to permit third party to file objection to the scheme, once the scheme is as per statutory provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act and approved by majority - objection of the petitioner with regard to the locus standi of M/s. Vodafone International, to file objection is therefore upheld, and it is held that M/s. Vodafone International B. V., has no locus standi to file objection, against the scheme of amalgamation - scheme of amalgamation being beneficial to both the transferor and transferee companies, its shareholders and its creditors, these company petitions are ordered Issues Involved:1. Sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation between M/s. Essar Telecommunication Holdings P. Ltd. and M/s. India Securities Ltd.2. Objections raised by the Income-tax Department.3. Objections raised by M/s. Vodafone International BV.4. Locus standi of M/s. Vodafone International BV to file objections.Detailed Analysis:1. Sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation:The petitions were filed by M/s. Essar Telecommunication Holdings P. Ltd. (transferor company) and M/s. India Securities Ltd. (transferee company) to sanction a scheme of amalgamation effective from April 1, 2010. The scheme aimed at better management, unlocking value, and creating liquidity for shareholders. It involved the transfer of the entire undertaking of the transferor company to the transferee company. The board of directors of both companies approved the scheme on June 4, 2010. The scheme included specific provisions for the allotment of shares to the equity shareholders and debenture holders of the transferor company. The scheme was claimed to be beneficial for both companies, their shareholders, creditors, and the public interest.2. Objections Raised by the Income-tax Department:The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 5(1), Mumbai, raised objections citing a demand of Rs. 487.46 crores against M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. for the assessment year 2008-09. The court noted that there was no claim against the transferor or transferee company and that the demand against the holding company had been stayed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the objections of the Income-tax Department were rejected.3. Objections Raised by M/s. Vodafone International BV:M/s. Vodafone International BV raised several objections, including the valuation report's accuracy, the suppression of material facts, and the scheme's potential adverse impact on Vodafone Essar Ltd. They argued that the scheme was void under SEBI regulations and influenced the fair market value determination under the 'FMV put option' agreement. The court noted that the objections regarding valuation had been addressed in the official liquidator's report. The court also observed that the scheme had been approved by the shareholders of the transferee company in a meeting held under the chairman appointed by the court.4. Locus Standi of M/s. Vodafone International BV to File Objections:The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner-companies regarding the locus standi of M/s. Vodafone International BV. The court referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sequent Scientific Ltd., In re, which held that only creditors and shareholders could object to a scheme of amalgamation. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in S. K. Gupta v. K. P. Jain, which distinguished between sections 391 and 392 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court concluded that M/s. Vodafone International BV, being neither a shareholder nor a creditor, had no locus standi to file objections against the scheme of amalgamation.Conclusion:The scheme of amalgamation was found to be beneficial to both the transferor and transferee companies, their shareholders, and creditors. The court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation, rejected the objections raised by the Income-tax Department and M/s. Vodafone International BV, and upheld the preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of M/s. Vodafone International BV. The remuneration for the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel was fixed at Rs. 5,000 for each petition, to be paid by the petitioner-companies.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found