<?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 (10) TMI 911 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126896</link>
    <description>Sanction of an amalgamation scheme under sections 391 to 394 requires full disclosure of material facts, the latest financial position, and the latest auditor&#039;s report, in addition to the requisite shareholder and creditor approvals. Earlier consent did not prevent parties from placing relevant material before the Court, and non-attendance at a meeting did not amount to implied consent. On the facts, the company&#039;s financial condition had deteriorated, audited accounts were unavailable, the business had substantially ceased, and the proposed revival was based on speculative assumptions. The scheme was therefore found not financially viable, not fair or reasonable, and prejudicial to public interest; sanction was refused and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 911 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126896</link>
      <description>Sanction of an amalgamation scheme under sections 391 to 394 requires full disclosure of material facts, the latest financial position, and the latest auditor&#039;s report, in addition to the requisite shareholder and creditor approvals. Earlier consent did not prevent parties from placing relevant material before the Court, and non-attendance at a meeting did not amount to implied consent. On the facts, the company&#039;s financial condition had deteriorated, audited accounts were unavailable, the business had substantially ceased, and the proposed revival was based on speculative assumptions. The scheme was therefore found not financially viable, not fair or reasonable, and prejudicial to public interest; sanction was refused and the petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>