<?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 (8) TMI 859 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105241</link>
    <description>Sanction of an amalgamation scheme requires strict compliance with statutory disclosure and approval safeguards. Employees&#039; union objections were maintainable because employees were vitally affected and could object in their capacity as shareholders. The company failed to place the latest financial position before the court and did not make full disclosure of material facts, including directors&#039; interests, contrary to the disclosure requirements. Defects in notice, authorisation, and proof of the requisite majority meant the approval process was not validly established. As the process was tainted and statutory conditions were not satisfied, the scheme was not sanctioned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:50:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 859 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105241</link>
      <description>Sanction of an amalgamation scheme requires strict compliance with statutory disclosure and approval safeguards. Employees&#039; union objections were maintainable because employees were vitally affected and could object in their capacity as shareholders. The company failed to place the latest financial position before the court and did not make full disclosure of material facts, including directors&#039; interests, contrary to the disclosure requirements. Defects in notice, authorisation, and proof of the requisite majority meant the approval process was not validly established. As the process was tainted and statutory conditions were not satisfied, the scheme was not sanctioned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>