https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97636 Appeals against the decree based on the revised award were maintainable because objections to the revised award, including challenge to an allegedly invalid remittal, could be entertained without a formal application to set aside the award. On valuation of dissentient shareholders' interest under the company-law provision, the arbitrator had wrongly treated the shareholders as co-owners by dividing the company's estimated net assets per ordinary share. The correct basis was the price the interest would fetch in a notional sale immediately before the winding-up resolution, taking assets, liabilities, and other relevant factors into account. The remittal for reconsideration was therefore justified, and the decrees founded on the revised award were sustained. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97636 Appeals against the decree based on the revised award were maintainable because objections to the revised award, including challenge to an allegedly invalid remittal, could be entertained without a formal application to set aside the award. On valuation of dissentient shareholders' interest under the company-law provision, the arbitrator had wrongly treated the shareholders as co-owners by dividing the company's estimated net assets per ordinary share. The correct basis was the price the interest would fetch in a notional sale immediately before the winding-up resolution, taking assets, liabilities, and other relevant factors into account. The remittal for reconsideration was therefore justified, and the decrees founded on the revised award were sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 24 Dec 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97636