<?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>2004 (1) TMI 370 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109321</link>
    <description>Once the BIFR has recommended winding up and directed the parties to seek further directions from the High Court, the Company Court may act under section 20(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, read with commencement of winding up under section 441 of the Companies Act, 1956. On that basis, the court may permit sale of the sick company&#039;s assets without sending the matter back to the BIFR. On the facts, the challenge based on absence of separate Government approval and alleged inadequacy of consideration was rejected, as the sale had already been negotiated and approved within the corporate process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:26:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 370 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109321</link>
      <description>Once the BIFR has recommended winding up and directed the parties to seek further directions from the High Court, the Company Court may act under section 20(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, read with commencement of winding up under section 441 of the Companies Act, 1956. On that basis, the court may permit sale of the sick company&#039;s assets without sending the matter back to the BIFR. On the facts, the challenge based on absence of separate Government approval and alleged inadequacy of consideration was rejected, as the sale had already been negotiated and approved within the corporate process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>