Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
