<?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>2015 (2) TMI 644 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256644</link>
    <description>Hybrid companies existing before the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 retained their character and shareholder rights under their Articles of Association. A pre-emption clause restricting share transfers remained valid and enforceable despite failure to amend the Articles to incorporate the additional statutory requirement for private companies; that omission did not automatically convert the company into a public company. The amendment did not expressly extinguish shareholders&#039; collective right to restrict transferability. Estoppel and res judicata did not bar the status argument because the earlier proceeding had not directly and substantially determined it. The effect of share transfers increasing membership was left for High Court consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 644 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256644</link>
      <description>Hybrid companies existing before the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 retained their character and shareholder rights under their Articles of Association. A pre-emption clause restricting share transfers remained valid and enforceable despite failure to amend the Articles to incorporate the additional statutory requirement for private companies; that omission did not automatically convert the company into a public company. The amendment did not expressly extinguish shareholders&#039; collective right to restrict transferability. Estoppel and res judicata did not bar the status argument because the earlier proceeding had not directly and substantially determined it. The effect of share transfers increasing membership was left for High Court consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>