<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1210 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126980</link>
    <description>A scheme of arrangement under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was found compliant because the requisite statutory majority of shareholders and creditors approved it, and the record disclosed the latest financial position, audit reports, and an affidavit confirming no pending investigation. Objections based on notice, newspaper publication, caveat, and the form of summons were rejected because meetings were individually served and publicly advertised as directed, no rule required publication only in local district newspapers, the caveator suffered no prejudice, and the summons defect did not affect sanction-stage validity. The scheme was treated as fair, lawful, and duly approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1210 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126980</link>
      <description>A scheme of arrangement under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was found compliant because the requisite statutory majority of shareholders and creditors approved it, and the record disclosed the latest financial position, audit reports, and an affidavit confirming no pending investigation. Objections based on notice, newspaper publication, caveat, and the form of summons were rejected because meetings were individually served and publicly advertised as directed, no rule required publication only in local district newspapers, the caveator suffered no prejudice, and the summons defect did not affect sanction-stage validity. The scheme was treated as fair, lawful, and duly approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>