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 rules offer fair, denies share acquisition restraint. Applicants fail to prove unfairness.</h1> <h3>Mrs. Leela Mahajan Versus T. Stanes & Co. Ltd.</h3> The court dismissed the applications, ruling that the offer made by T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. was fair and reasonable. The applicants were not entitled to an ... Shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of applicants to an order restraining the transferee company from exercising their right under section 153B of the Indian Companies Act to acquire the shares of dissenting shareholders.2. Fairness and reasonableness of the offer made by the transferee company to the shareholders of the transferor company.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of Applicants to an Order Restraining the Transferee Company:The core issue was whether the applicants could restrain the transferee company, T. Stanes and Company Ltd., from exercising its right under section 153B of the Indian Companies Act to acquire the shares of dissenting shareholders. According to section 153B(1), when a scheme or contract involving the transfer of shares is approved by holders of not less than three-fourths in value of the shares, the transferee company may, within two months after the expiration of four months, give notice to any dissenting shareholder that it desires to acquire his shares. The court's discretion is limited to either dismissing the application, thereby allowing the transferee company to acquire the shares as per the original terms, or allowing the application and preventing the acquisition.2. Fairness and Reasonableness of the Offer:The applicants argued that the offer made by T. Stanes and Company Ltd. was not fair and reasonable. The offer included an exchange of one share in T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. for every share in the United Coffee Supply Co. Ltd. (U.C.S.) or an alternative cash payment of Rs. 21-8-0 per share. The applicants contended that the shares were worth Rs. 39 per share based on the balance sheet valuation and demanded payment at this rate.The court considered several factors to determine the fairness of the offer:- Majority Approval: Over 95% of the shareholders, excluding the 51% held by T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., approved the offer, indicating a strong majority support.- No Allegation of Fraud or Misrepresentation: There was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the scheme presented to the shareholders. The offer and its terms were clearly stated in Exhibit R. 1.- Market Value and Balance Sheet Valuation: The offer provided a choice between shares valued at Rs. 39 each (based on balance sheet valuation) and a cash payment above the market price quoted on the stock exchange.- No Unfair or Oppressive Conduct: The court found no evidence of unfair or oppressive conduct by the majority shareholders or any material fact being withheld.The court referenced several precedents, including Government Telephones Board v. Hormusji and In re Hoare and Co. Ltd., which emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the dissenting shareholders to show that the majority's decision was wrong or the offer was unfair. The court concluded that the applicants failed to provide sufficient reasons to prove the offer was unfair or unreasonable.Conclusion:The court dismissed the applications, stating that the offer made by T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. was neither unfair nor unconscionable. The applicants were not entitled to an order restraining the transferee company from acquiring their shares under section 153B of the Indian Companies Act. The applications were dismissed with costs, and an advocate's fee of Rs. 75 was awarded.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found