<?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 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337112</link>
    <description>A scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act was sanctioned because the requisite stakeholder approvals had been obtained, notice was duly issued and published, and no substantive objection remained. The Official Liquidator reported no complaint and no indication that the transferor company&#039;s affairs were conducted in a manner prejudicial to members or public interest. The Regional Director raised no objection, subject to compliance with the RBI framework governing payments banks and transfer of the PPI business, and the company&#039;s undertaking to comply with those requirements was accepted. The transferor company was therefore to stand dissolved without winding up, subject to recorded legal compliance directions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 08:53:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337112</link>
      <description>A scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act was sanctioned because the requisite stakeholder approvals had been obtained, notice was duly issued and published, and no substantive objection remained. The Official Liquidator reported no complaint and no indication that the transferor company&#039;s affairs were conducted in a manner prejudicial to members or public interest. The Regional Director raised no objection, subject to compliance with the RBI framework governing payments banks and transfer of the PPI business, and the company&#039;s undertaking to comply with those requirements was accepted. The transferor company was therefore to stand dissolved without winding up, subject to recorded legal compliance directions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>