<?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>1999 (4) TMI 551 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105208</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the application to set aside the order allowing the amalgamation of two companies. The court found that the applicants, despite claiming to be shareholders, were not listed as members in the official records. It held that they lacked standing to challenge the amalgamation and rejected their allegations of fraud and suppression of facts. Additionally, the court determined that the purchasing company had acquired the shares in good faith, following due diligence. Compliance with procedural requirements for the amalgamation was confirmed, and the court dismissed the application with costs, denying the request for a stay of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:32:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 551 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105208</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the application to set aside the order allowing the amalgamation of two companies. The court found that the applicants, despite claiming to be shareholders, were not listed as members in the official records. It held that they lacked standing to challenge the amalgamation and rejected their allegations of fraud and suppression of facts. Additionally, the court determined that the purchasing company had acquired the shares in good faith, following due diligence. Compliance with procedural requirements for the amalgamation was confirmed, and the court dismissed the application with costs, denying the request for a stay of the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>