<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (6) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102504</link>
    <description>The Full Bench concluded that the second proviso to Section 394(1) of the Companies Act is not always applicable in cases of amalgamation, and dissolution without winding up is not mandatory. The court upheld the sanction of the amalgamation without ordering dissolution of the transferor company. The case was remanded to the Division Bench for further proceedings on other factual matters, if any.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102504</link>
      <description>The Full Bench concluded that the second proviso to Section 394(1) of the Companies Act is not always applicable in cases of amalgamation, and dissolution without winding up is not mandatory. The court upheld the sanction of the amalgamation without ordering dissolution of the transferor company. The case was remanded to the Division Bench for further proceedings on other factual matters, if any.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>