https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265217 The text addresses whether parties were bound by an agreement that management must purchase dissenting shares at a court-appointed valuer's determined price in a just-and-equitable winding up context. It explains that the 7.5.2003 order created an obligation to adopt the valuer's report as the purchase price, that the Single Judge's acceptance of the report and directions for purchase and partial reimbursement of valuation costs were affirmed, and that the Division Bench correctly held the company could not lawfully offer a lower price; the appeal against those directions failed. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265217 The text addresses whether parties were bound by an agreement that management must purchase dissenting shares at a court-appointed valuer's determined price in a just-and-equitable winding up context. It explains that the 7.5.2003 order created an obligation to adopt the valuer's report as the purchase price, that the Single Judge's acceptance of the report and directions for purchase and partial reimbursement of valuation costs were affirmed, and that the Division Bench correctly held the company could not lawfully offer a lower price; the appeal against those directions failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265217