<?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 (5) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110416</link>
    <description>A sanctioned scheme of arrangement can be recalled only on proof of fraud or legally material suppression, exercised sparingly under the court&#039;s inherent powers. Pending shareholder disputes were not treated as mandatory disclosure for sanction, and where the objector knew of the dispute, participated in the meetings, and the scheme was approved by the requisite majority, no fraud or misleading non-disclosure was established. A scheme and related share transfer are not invalidated by alleged breach of interim injunctions unless a subsisting restraint is shown to have been violated; completed transfer before the relevant date and later status quo orders defeated the challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:49:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110416</link>
      <description>A sanctioned scheme of arrangement can be recalled only on proof of fraud or legally material suppression, exercised sparingly under the court&#039;s inherent powers. Pending shareholder disputes were not treated as mandatory disclosure for sanction, and where the objector knew of the dispute, participated in the meetings, and the scheme was approved by the requisite majority, no fraud or misleading non-disclosure was established. A scheme and related share transfer are not invalidated by alleged breach of interim injunctions unless a subsisting restraint is shown to have been violated; completed transfer before the relevant date and later status quo orders defeated the challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>