Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a Scheme of Arrangement between ICICI Bank Ltd and ICICI Securities Ltd. The Tribunal held that appellants lacked standing to object as they did not meet the shareholding threshold under s.230(4) of Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT found no conflict between s.230 and Regulation 37 of SEBI Delisting Regulations, ruling that no separate meeting of public shareholders was required as the scheme uniformly affected all equity shareholders. The scheme had received approval from 93.82% of equity shareholders and 71.89% of public shareholders. The appellants' minimal 0.08% shareholding was insufficient to maintain the appeal as "aggrieved persons," with the Tribunal noting that their objections were impeding shareholder democracy.
The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a Scheme of Arrangement between ICICI Bank Ltd and ICICI Securities Ltd. The Tribunal held that appellants lacked standing to object as they did not meet the shareholding threshold under s.230(4) of Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT found no conflict between s.230 and Regulation 37 of SEBI Delisting Regulations, ruling that no separate meeting of public shareholders was required as the scheme uniformly affected all equity shareholders. The scheme had received approval from 93.82% of equity shareholders and 71.89% of public shareholders. The appellants' minimal 0.08% shareholding was insufficient to maintain the appeal as "aggrieved persons," with the Tribunal noting that their objections were impeding shareholder democracy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
