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 ...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1541 to 1560 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A composite scheme of amalgamation and demerger, once approved by shareholders and creditors, could not be narrowed by directing a separate demerger application or by altering the scheme's material terms. The NCLAT held that the scheme identified the amalgamated company, resulting company and demerged undertaking with sufficient specificity, and that demerger was an integral consequence of the sanctioned composite scheme under Sections 230 to 232. It also corrected factual errors in the sanction order concerning the effective date, the identity of the resulting company, and an unnecessary rider tied to an unadmitted petition. The order was set aside to the extent inconsistent with the approved scheme, while statutory dues, stamp duty, taxes and compliance obligations remained fully preserved.
A composite scheme of amalgamation and demerger, once approved by shareholders and creditors, could not be narrowed by directing a separate demerger application or by altering the scheme's material terms. The NCLAT held that the scheme identified the amalgamated company, resulting company and demerged undertaking with sufficient specificity, and that demerger was an integral consequence of the sanctioned composite scheme under Sections 230 to 232. It also corrected factual errors in the sanction order concerning the effective date, the identity of the resulting company, and an unnecessary rider tied to an unadmitted petition. The order was set aside to the extent inconsistent with the approved scheme, while statutory dues, stamp duty, taxes and compliance obligations remained fully preserved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.