<?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>2005 (7) TMI 374 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110917</link>
    <description>A body corporate constituted under a special statute can fall within the Companies Act, 1956 framework for amalgamation, because &quot;body corporate&quot; is wider than &quot;company&quot; and section 394(4)(b) includes a body corporate as a transferor company. On the facts, the transferee bank was treated as a company for this purpose, and the scheme of amalgamation was permissible under sections 391 to 394. A separate petition by the transferee was not required where it was the 100% holding company, the shareholder base was effectively the same, no fresh shares or capital reorganisation was involved, and creditors were not prejudiced. The amalgamation scheme was approved and the transferor company was directed to be dissolved without winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:01:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 374 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110917</link>
      <description>A body corporate constituted under a special statute can fall within the Companies Act, 1956 framework for amalgamation, because &quot;body corporate&quot; is wider than &quot;company&quot; and section 394(4)(b) includes a body corporate as a transferor company. On the facts, the transferee bank was treated as a company for this purpose, and the scheme of amalgamation was permissible under sections 391 to 394. A separate petition by the transferee was not required where it was the 100% holding company, the shareholder base was effectively the same, no fresh shares or capital reorganisation was involved, and creditors were not prejudiced. The amalgamation scheme was approved and the transferor company was directed to be dissolved without winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>