<?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>1996 (3) TMI 394 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103066</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court considered whether sanction of an amalgamation involving the Indian undertaking of a foreign company was without jurisdiction or a nullity, and whether the scheme could be recalled for alleged fraud based on the foreign company being struck off. It held that the Companies Act, 1956 permitted such an amalgamation structure, including a foreign body corporate as transferor, and that restoration of the foreign company treated it as never having been struck off. The court also found no strict proof of intentional suppression or fraud. The sanction order therefore remained within jurisdiction, was not a nullity, and was not liable to recall.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:48:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 394 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103066</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court considered whether sanction of an amalgamation involving the Indian undertaking of a foreign company was without jurisdiction or a nullity, and whether the scheme could be recalled for alleged fraud based on the foreign company being struck off. It held that the Companies Act, 1956 permitted such an amalgamation structure, including a foreign body corporate as transferor, and that restoration of the foreign company treated it as never having been struck off. The court also found no strict proof of intentional suppression or fraud. The sanction order therefore remained within jurisdiction, was not a nullity, and was not liable to recall.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>