<?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>2009 (5) TMI 541 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112522</link>
    <description>A composite scheme of arrangement involving purchase of shares, demerger of the hotel business, and reduction and reconstruction of share capital was sanctioned because the shareholders and creditors supported it, no objections were received after advertisement, and the arrangement was found fair, reasonable, and lawful. The Regional Director&#039;s objection to the proposed accounting treatment failed because Accounting Standard-14 applies to amalgamation, not to the demerger structure in question. The company&#039;s without-prejudice offer to treat any difference as share premium did not require modification of the scheme, and the court overruled the objection and approved the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 541 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112522</link>
      <description>A composite scheme of arrangement involving purchase of shares, demerger of the hotel business, and reduction and reconstruction of share capital was sanctioned because the shareholders and creditors supported it, no objections were received after advertisement, and the arrangement was found fair, reasonable, and lawful. The Regional Director&#039;s objection to the proposed accounting treatment failed because Accounting Standard-14 applies to amalgamation, not to the demerger structure in question. The company&#039;s without-prejudice offer to treat any difference as share premium did not require modification of the scheme, and the court overruled the objection and approved the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>