<?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 (7) TMI 779 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113828</link>
    <description>In a winding up proceeding following a reference under sick industrial company law, the High Court recognised jurisdiction to examine whether a workable revival scheme existed as an alternative to winding up, because revival is distinct from a mere sale of assets. It also held that the proposed global tender had to be aligned with the revival objective and the interests of ex-employees, so the eligibility criteria were restricted to gold-mining experience, the ex-employees&#039; co-operative was given a practical first right of refusal, and the valuation and counter-offer mechanism was adjusted accordingly. The tender process was approved only with these modifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 779 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113828</link>
      <description>In a winding up proceeding following a reference under sick industrial company law, the High Court recognised jurisdiction to examine whether a workable revival scheme existed as an alternative to winding up, because revival is distinct from a mere sale of assets. It also held that the proposed global tender had to be aligned with the revival objective and the interests of ex-employees, so the eligibility criteria were restricted to gold-mining experience, the ex-employees&#039; co-operative was given a practical first right of refusal, and the valuation and counter-offer mechanism was adjusted accordingly. The tender process was approved only with these modifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>