<?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 (6) TMI 666 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213360</link>
    <description>Section 111A requires free transferability of shares in a public company and overrides contrary pre-emption restrictions in its Articles of Association. Companies that acquired public status under Section 43A remained public companies after the 2000 amendment abolished the deemed-public-company concept, unless validly converted. A failed special resolution to amend the Articles supported continued public-company status. Pre-emption rights restricting share transfers were therefore inapplicable. Allegations of minority oppression and mismanagement required substantial proof; repetition of claims previously withdrawn or dismissed without liberty weakened those allegations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 666 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213360</link>
      <description>Section 111A requires free transferability of shares in a public company and overrides contrary pre-emption restrictions in its Articles of Association. Companies that acquired public status under Section 43A remained public companies after the 2000 amendment abolished the deemed-public-company concept, unless validly converted. A failed special resolution to amend the Articles supported continued public-company status. Pre-emption rights restricting share transfers were therefore inapplicable. Allegations of minority oppression and mismanagement required substantial proof; repetition of claims previously withdrawn or dismissed without liberty weakened those allegations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>