<?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 (4) TMI 315 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103692</link>
    <description>In company arrangement proceedings, notice to the Central Government was held unnecessary at the initial stage of taking out judges summons for directions to convene meetings, because the statutory notice requirement attached to the later petition for sanction. A joint petition by transferor and transferee companies was held maintainable, as no rule barred joinder where the matter was common and involved shared questions of law and fact. On sanction, the Court emphasised that approval depends on bona fides and public interest; it refused sanction where the proposed arrangement appeared to be a device for transferring valuable assets and avoiding governmental dues rather than a genuine commercial reorganisation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 315 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103692</link>
      <description>In company arrangement proceedings, notice to the Central Government was held unnecessary at the initial stage of taking out judges summons for directions to convene meetings, because the statutory notice requirement attached to the later petition for sanction. A joint petition by transferor and transferee companies was held maintainable, as no rule barred joinder where the matter was common and involved shared questions of law and fact. On sanction, the Court emphasised that approval depends on bona fides and public interest; it refused sanction where the proposed arrangement appeared to be a device for transferring valuable assets and avoiding governmental dues rather than a genuine commercial reorganisation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>