<?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>2002 (10) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106521</link>
    <description>The Court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding it fair and in the interest of all shareholders and creditors. Despite objections raised by certain shareholders and creditors, the Court emphasized that the majority had approved the scheme and rejected claims of unfairness or violation of public policy. The Court held that the statutory requirements were met, the valuation process was sound, and jurisdiction lay with the Company Court rather than the BIFR. The scheme was sanctioned, petitions were granted, and costs were awarded to the Regional Director and Official Liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:44:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106521</link>
      <description>The Court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding it fair and in the interest of all shareholders and creditors. Despite objections raised by certain shareholders and creditors, the Court emphasized that the majority had approved the scheme and rejected claims of unfairness or violation of public policy. The Court held that the statutory requirements were met, the valuation process was sound, and jurisdiction lay with the Company Court rather than the BIFR. The scheme was sanctioned, petitions were granted, and costs were awarded to the Regional Director and Official Liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>