<?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>2007 (10) TMI 395 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111307</link>
    <description>A merger sanctioned under the Companies Act does not automatically entitle the transferee to fee continuity under the SEBI circular on &quot;compulsion of law&quot;; that expression is construed narrowly and applies only where amalgamation is effectively an alternative to liquidation or comparable legal compulsion. Because the amalgamation here was undertaken to meet the net-worth requirement for entry into the derivative segment, the exemption failed. SEBI was also entitled to levy fresh turnover and registration fees on the merged entity, as its independent regulatory fee regime was not displaced by the amalgamation and did not conflict with the Companies Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 15:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 395 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111307</link>
      <description>A merger sanctioned under the Companies Act does not automatically entitle the transferee to fee continuity under the SEBI circular on &quot;compulsion of law&quot;; that expression is construed narrowly and applies only where amalgamation is effectively an alternative to liquidation or comparable legal compulsion. Because the amalgamation here was undertaken to meet the net-worth requirement for entry into the derivative segment, the exemption failed. SEBI was also entitled to levy fresh turnover and registration fees on the merged entity, as its independent regulatory fee regime was not displaced by the amalgamation and did not conflict with the Companies Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>