Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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>Approval of Modified Scheme of Arrangement between Core Healthcare & Nirma: Equity Shareholders & Creditors Bound</h1> <h3>Core Healthcare Limited Versus Nirma Limited</h3> Core Healthcare Limited Versus Nirma Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Sanction of the Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement.2. Classification and treatment of creditors.3. Disclosure and adequacy of information in the explanatory statement.4. Reduction of share capital and compliance with statutory requirements.5. Allegations of fraud on revenue and tax benefits.6. Validity and fairness of the share exchange ratio.7. Objections regarding specific creditors and their claims.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sanction of the Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement:The court sanctioned the Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited, binding on all equity shareholders, Class 'A' lenders, and Class 'B' lenders. The court directed the petitioner companies to file a certified copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies for registration.2. Classification and Treatment of Creditors:The court addressed objections regarding the classification of creditors, particularly the inclusion of ARCIL, Niya Finstock Pvt. Ltd., and Astramed Technologies Ltd. as Class 'A' and Class 'B' lenders. The court emphasized that creditors with similar rights should be treated as a single class. ARCIL, having acquired debts from various banks, was deemed to step into the shoes of the original lenders, and its votes were considered valid. The court found no conflict of interest between ARCIL and other lenders, as all had a common interest in recovering dues from Core.3. Disclosure and Adequacy of Information in the Explanatory Statement:The court examined whether the explanatory statement provided sufficient information to the creditors and shareholders. It was noted that the explanatory statement must contain the terms of the scheme and its effect, particularly any material interest of the directors. The court found that the explanatory statement did not suffer from inadequacies, as the lenders were already aware of the relevant facts, including the role of ARCIL and the injunction order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal.4. Reduction of Share Capital and Compliance with Statutory Requirements:The court considered the objection that the scheme involved a reduction of share capital without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act. The court held that the reduction of share capital could be approved as part of the scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 391, provided the procedure for reduction was carried out simultaneously. The court found that the statutory requirements were met, and the reduction of share capital was approved.5. Allegations of Fraud on Revenue and Tax Benefits:The court addressed the objection that the scheme amounted to fraud on revenue due to the tax benefits arising from the carry-forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The court held that Section 72A(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowed such benefits, and taking advantage of statutory provisions could not be considered fraud on revenue.6. Validity and Fairness of the Share Exchange Ratio:The court examined the share exchange ratio, which was based on the report of M/s. RSM & Company, Chartered Accountants. The court noted that the ratio was accepted by the overwhelming majority of shareholders and creditors. The court emphasized that it was not for the court to substitute its judgment for the commercial wisdom of the shareholders and creditors who approved the scheme.7. Objections Regarding Specific Creditors and Their Claims:The court addressed specific objections from creditors like HDFC Bank and M/s. Alstom Projects (India) Ltd. HDFC Bank objected to the treatment of amounts paid under bank guarantees. The court held that HDFC Bank, having become a lender upon payment under the guarantees, was subject to the scheme. M/s. Alstom Projects (India) Ltd. and IDBI Bank sought the return of a power plant, but the court found that such issues were beyond the scope of the scheme proceedings and advised them to seek appropriate legal remedies.Conclusion:The court sanctioned the Modified Composite Scheme of Arrangement between Core Healthcare Limited and Nirma Limited, finding it fair, reasonable, and beneficial for all stakeholders. The objections raised were addressed and found to be without merit. The scheme was approved, subject to the directions for registration with the Registrar of Companies.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found