<?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 (3) TMI 1422 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340919</link>
    <description>Foreign investment routed through an Indian investment structure was treated as not breaching FEMA at the transaction stage; any breach would arise only on repatriation without RBI permission. Contractually agreed articles giving an investor&#039;s nominee directors affirmative voting rights over reserved matters were treated as binding, so their exercise did not constitute oppression. The nominee directors&#039; continuation, the debenture trustee&#039;s actions on their instructions, and the investor&#039;s contractual right to convert compulsorily convertible debentures were upheld within the agreed arrangements. Conversion of optionally partly convertible debentures required affirmative nominee-director approval and could not be compelled. Compensation and interim relief were rejected for lack of supporting grounds, and the company petition was described as vexatious and frivolous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 06:57:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1422 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340919</link>
      <description>Foreign investment routed through an Indian investment structure was treated as not breaching FEMA at the transaction stage; any breach would arise only on repatriation without RBI permission. Contractually agreed articles giving an investor&#039;s nominee directors affirmative voting rights over reserved matters were treated as binding, so their exercise did not constitute oppression. The nominee directors&#039; continuation, the debenture trustee&#039;s actions on their instructions, and the investor&#039;s contractual right to convert compulsorily convertible debentures were upheld within the agreed arrangements. Conversion of optionally partly convertible debentures required affirmative nominee-director approval and could not be compelled. Compensation and interim relief were rejected for lack of supporting grounds, and the company petition was described as vexatious and frivolous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>