<?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 905 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337825</link>
    <description>A scheme of arrangement and amalgamation involving demerger and merger was found fit for sanction under the Companies Act, 1956 because the requisite approvals of equity shareholders and unsecured creditors had been obtained, the secured creditors&#039; meeting had earlier been dispensed with, and no substantive objection remained from the Regional Director apart from compliance with RBI approval, FDI norms and other statutory requirements. The Court held that the scheme was supported by the material on record and by the procedure contemplated under Sections 391 to 394, and it sanctioned the scheme subject to the stated safeguards and compliance conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:28:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 905 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337825</link>
      <description>A scheme of arrangement and amalgamation involving demerger and merger was found fit for sanction under the Companies Act, 1956 because the requisite approvals of equity shareholders and unsecured creditors had been obtained, the secured creditors&#039; meeting had earlier been dispensed with, and no substantive objection remained from the Regional Director apart from compliance with RBI approval, FDI norms and other statutory requirements. The Court held that the scheme was supported by the material on record and by the procedure contemplated under Sections 391 to 394, and it sanctioned the scheme subject to the stated safeguards and compliance conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>