<?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 (8) TMI 712 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113906</link>
    <description>The Court sanctioned the demerger scheme between two companies, addressing issues such as compliance with statutory provisions, objections raised by the Central Government, and related party transactions under sections 295 and 297 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court approved the scheme after modifications were incorporated, dispensed with the requirement of Central Government approval for company name changes, and directed the petitioner-company to address any contraventions post-sanction. The demerger scheme was sanctioned subject to necessary modifications and observations, with the petitioner ordered to pay costs to the Central Government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2014 20:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 712 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113906</link>
      <description>The Court sanctioned the demerger scheme between two companies, addressing issues such as compliance with statutory provisions, objections raised by the Central Government, and related party transactions under sections 295 and 297 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court approved the scheme after modifications were incorporated, dispensed with the requirement of Central Government approval for company name changes, and directed the petitioner-company to address any contraventions post-sanction. The demerger scheme was sanctioned subject to necessary modifications and observations, with the petitioner ordered to pay costs to the Central Government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>