<?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>1991 (4) TMI 450 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191575</link>
    <description>Public financial institutions disposing of large share blocks are subject to scrutiny where the transaction may facilitate concentration of control in a private group, but interference requires a showing of illegality, bad faith, or disregard of public interest. The challenge to the share transfer was not granted operative relief because the shares had already been bought back by the financial institutions. On the mega debenture issue, preferential reservation under a special resolution was treated as permissible within the capital issues framework, and the consent was not shown to suffer from non-application of mind or arbitrariness. The challenge failed, and the consent order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:45:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 450 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191575</link>
      <description>Public financial institutions disposing of large share blocks are subject to scrutiny where the transaction may facilitate concentration of control in a private group, but interference requires a showing of illegality, bad faith, or disregard of public interest. The challenge to the share transfer was not granted operative relief because the shares had already been bought back by the financial institutions. On the mega debenture issue, preferential reservation under a special resolution was treated as permissible within the capital issues framework, and the consent was not shown to suffer from non-application of mind or arbitrariness. The challenge failed, and the consent order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>