Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Reduction of share capital under Section 66 was examined for jurisdictional defects in appellate bench composition, procedural sufficiency of the statutory notice and disclosures, independence of the valuer, and the permissibility of applying a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the tribunal's bench composition and declined to disturb the tribunal orders. It held Section 66 does not require inclusion of a valuation report in the notice where the offered price and reports are available for inspection, rejected a claim of demonstrable valuer bias, and accepted that DLOM and the valuation were not manifestly unreasonable, so the reduction stands.
Reduction of share capital under Section 66 was examined for jurisdictional defects in appellate bench composition, procedural sufficiency of the statutory notice and disclosures, independence of the valuer, and the permissibility of applying a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the tribunal's bench composition and declined to disturb the tribunal orders. It held Section 66 does not require inclusion of a valuation report in the notice where the offered price and reports are available for inspection, rejected a claim of demonstrable valuer bias, and accepted that DLOM and the valuation were not manifestly unreasonable, so the reduction stands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.