<?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>2010 (6) TMI 332 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113478</link>
    <description>A scheme of arrangement may be sanctioned with textual modifications where uncertain appointed and effective dates, and an overbroad board power to modify the scheme, are corrected to preserve the court&#039;s sanctioning control. Rule 78 of the Company Court Rules does not require the Chairman&#039;s report to list all joint holders&#039; names, provided the voting details are accurately stated and substantial compliance is shown. Adjustment of goodwill against the securities premium account was treated as a commercial decision absent fraud, mala fides or absurdity, and was supported by undertakings. The company also satisfied the requirement to place reasonably current financial information before the court for sanction under section 391(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 332 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113478</link>
      <description>A scheme of arrangement may be sanctioned with textual modifications where uncertain appointed and effective dates, and an overbroad board power to modify the scheme, are corrected to preserve the court&#039;s sanctioning control. Rule 78 of the Company Court Rules does not require the Chairman&#039;s report to list all joint holders&#039; names, provided the voting details are accurately stated and substantial compliance is shown. Adjustment of goodwill against the securities premium account was treated as a commercial decision absent fraud, mala fides or absurdity, and was supported by undertakings. The company also satisfied the requirement to place reasonably current financial information before the court for sanction under section 391(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>