<?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 (8) TMI 387 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110948</link>
    <description>A wholly owned subsidiary used as the vehicle for a parent company&#039;s investment may, on the facts, be treated with the parent as a single economic unit, so the subsidiary&#039;s contractual obligations can bind the holding company. The pre-emption clause in the shareholders&#039; agreement was treated as a qualified right of first refusal, not an absolute restraint on the proposed sale structure, and it did not require sale on terms chosen by the pre-emptor. Waiver was inferred where the applicant, with full knowledge of its rights, participated in the bidding process and acted inconsistently with the asserted pre-emptive right, so interim relief was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:54:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 387 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110948</link>
      <description>A wholly owned subsidiary used as the vehicle for a parent company&#039;s investment may, on the facts, be treated with the parent as a single economic unit, so the subsidiary&#039;s contractual obligations can bind the holding company. The pre-emption clause in the shareholders&#039; agreement was treated as a qualified right of first refusal, not an absolute restraint on the proposed sale structure, and it did not require sale on terms chosen by the pre-emptor. Waiver was inferred where the applicant, with full knowledge of its rights, participated in the bidding process and acted inconsistently with the asserted pre-emptive right, so interim relief was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>