<?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>2010 (5) TMI 925 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198237</link>
    <description>The Court held that separate proceedings under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 were not necessary for the parent Holding Company in the proposed amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary. The Court accepted the argument that since the Holding Company held all shares of the subsidiary and no new shares would be issued, the rights of existing shareholders would not be affected. Relying on past court orders and decisions, the Court allowed the application by Nirma Limited without imposing any costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:06:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 925 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198237</link>
      <description>The Court held that separate proceedings under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 were not necessary for the parent Holding Company in the proposed amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary. The Court accepted the argument that since the Holding Company held all shares of the subsidiary and no new shares would be issued, the rights of existing shareholders would not be affected. Relying on past court orders and decisions, the Court allowed the application by Nirma Limited without imposing any costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>