<?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 829 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337749</link>
    <description>The Court approved the scheme of arrangement (Demerger) between two companies, effective from 01.01.2016, under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme was found to be fair, just, and compliant with statutory provisions, not prejudicial to any stakeholder&#039;s interests, and in line with public policy. Shareholder meetings were dispensed with as equity shareholders had consented. The Regional Director raised no objections. The order clarified no exemption from stamp duty, taxes, or compliances. The Senior Central Government Standing Counsel was awarded a fee from the Demerged company. Petitions were disposed of as per the judgment terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:15:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 829 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337749</link>
      <description>The Court approved the scheme of arrangement (Demerger) between two companies, effective from 01.01.2016, under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The scheme was found to be fair, just, and compliant with statutory provisions, not prejudicial to any stakeholder&#039;s interests, and in line with public policy. Shareholder meetings were dispensed with as equity shareholders had consented. The Regional Director raised no objections. The order clarified no exemption from stamp duty, taxes, or compliances. The Senior Central Government Standing Counsel was awarded a fee from the Demerged company. Petitions were disposed of as per the judgment terms.</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=337749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>