<?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 (6) TMI 581 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112553</link>
    <description>The court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement for financial restructuring of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (HIL) under sections 391 and 100 of the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme involved creating a &quot;Reconstruction Reserve Account&quot; from the Securities Premium Account balance to adjust expenses, despite objections raised by certain parties. The court ruled in favor of the scheme, emphasizing shareholder and stakeholder involvement, compliance with legal provisions, and the commercial wisdom of the shareholders and Board of Directors. The objections were overruled, and the scheme was approved, with costs awarded to the Regional Director.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 581 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112553</link>
      <description>The court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement for financial restructuring of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (HIL) under sections 391 and 100 of the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme involved creating a &quot;Reconstruction Reserve Account&quot; from the Securities Premium Account balance to adjust expenses, despite objections raised by certain parties. The court ruled in favor of the scheme, emphasizing shareholder and stakeholder involvement, compliance with legal provisions, and the commercial wisdom of the shareholders and Board of Directors. The objections were overruled, and the scheme was approved, with costs awarded to the Regional Director.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>