<?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>2012 (11) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218192</link>
    <description>The judgment pertains to a first motion application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, concerning a Scheme of Arrangement between a Transferor Company and a Transferee Company. The High Court dispensed with the requirement for meetings by the Transferor Company and approved the proposed scheme, directing separate meetings for various stakeholders of the Transferee Company. Chairpersons were appointed for the unsecured creditors&#039; meeting, and detailed regulations were established for quorum, proxies, notices, and post-meeting reports. The application was allowed in specified terms, with an order for immediate action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218192</link>
      <description>The judgment pertains to a first motion application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, concerning a Scheme of Arrangement between a Transferor Company and a Transferee Company. The High Court dispensed with the requirement for meetings by the Transferor Company and approved the proposed scheme, directing separate meetings for various stakeholders of the Transferee Company. Chairpersons were appointed for the unsecured creditors&#039; meeting, and detailed regulations were established for quorum, proxies, notices, and post-meeting reports. The application was allowed in specified terms, with an order for immediate action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>