<?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 906 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337826</link>
    <description>The petition filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking approval for the proposed scheme of Amalgamation between two companies based in New Delhi was granted sanction. The benefits of the amalgamation included enhanced cash flows and operational efficiencies. The share exchange ratio involved no consideration payable by the Amalgamated Company. Approval was obtained from the Board of Directors, objections were addressed, and no prejudicial conduct was found. Sanction was granted, and compliance with statutory requirements was mandated. The Petitioner/Amalgamating Company was directed to pay costs associated with the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:28:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 906 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337826</link>
      <description>The petition filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking approval for the proposed scheme of Amalgamation between two companies based in New Delhi was granted sanction. The benefits of the amalgamation included enhanced cash flows and operational efficiencies. The share exchange ratio involved no consideration payable by the Amalgamated Company. Approval was obtained from the Board of Directors, objections were addressed, and no prejudicial conduct was found. Sanction was granted, and compliance with statutory requirements was mandated. The Petitioner/Amalgamating Company was directed to pay costs associated with the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>