<?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 668 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213362</link>
    <description>The court approved the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the transferor and transferee companies. The board of directors of both companies had already endorsed the merger, with no objections from secured creditors or ongoing investigations against either company. The objection raised by the Regional Director was dismissed based on legal precedent. The official liquidator confirmed no prejudicial conduct by the transferor company. Equity shareholders&#039; meetings were waived for both companies, and the court ruled in favor of the amalgamation scheme, prioritizing the interests of equity shareholders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 20:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 668 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213362</link>
      <description>The court approved the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the transferor and transferee companies. The board of directors of both companies had already endorsed the merger, with no objections from secured creditors or ongoing investigations against either company. The objection raised by the Regional Director was dismissed based on legal precedent. The official liquidator confirmed no prejudicial conduct by the transferor company. Equity shareholders&#039; meetings were waived for both companies, and the court ruled in favor of the amalgamation scheme, prioritizing the interests of equity shareholders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>