<?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>2017 (1) TMI 191 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337111</link>
    <description>The court granted sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company. Approval was based on the benefits outlined in the petition, compliance with legal requirements, and positive reports from the Official Liquidator and Regional Director. With no objections and satisfaction of all conditions, the court directed the Transferor Company to stand dissolved without winding up, emphasizing compliance with statutory obligations and payment of necessary charges. The petition was allowed, and the parties were instructed to adhere to the specified terms and deposit costs within a set timeframe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:53:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 191 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337111</link>
      <description>The court granted sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company. Approval was based on the benefits outlined in the petition, compliance with legal requirements, and positive reports from the Official Liquidator and Regional Director. With no objections and satisfaction of all conditions, the court directed the Transferor Company to stand dissolved without winding up, emphasizing compliance with statutory obligations and payment of necessary charges. The petition was allowed, and the parties were instructed to adhere to the specified terms and deposit costs within a set timeframe.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>