Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
