<?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 (10) TMI 287 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111724</link>
    <description>A scheme of amalgamation may be sanctioned where the shareholders of both companies have unanimously approved it, the Official Liquidator reports no prejudice to members or public interest, and the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied. An objection based on insufficiency of authorised share capital was not accepted because the scheme itself provided for the transferee company&#039;s authorised capital to increase by addition of the transferor company&#039;s authorised capital, and the combined authorised capital did not exceed the aggregate of the two companies. The objection that fresh fees or stamp duty were required on the combined authorised capital was also rejected, and the scheme was treated as effective from the appointed date, with the transferor company dissolving without winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:33:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 287 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111724</link>
      <description>A scheme of amalgamation may be sanctioned where the shareholders of both companies have unanimously approved it, the Official Liquidator reports no prejudice to members or public interest, and the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied. An objection based on insufficiency of authorised share capital was not accepted because the scheme itself provided for the transferee company&#039;s authorised capital to increase by addition of the transferor company&#039;s authorised capital, and the combined authorised capital did not exceed the aggregate of the two companies. The objection that fresh fees or stamp duty were required on the combined authorised capital was also rejected, and the scheme was treated as effective from the appointed date, with the transferor company dissolving without winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>