<?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 (1) TMI 1260 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275528</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not acquire control over the target company under the agreement, and therefore, Regulation 12 was not triggered. The Board&#039;s direction to include Regulation 12 in the letter of offer was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned direction was set aside with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2023 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1260 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275528</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not acquire control over the target company under the agreement, and therefore, Regulation 12 was not triggered. The Board&#039;s direction to include Regulation 12 in the letter of offer was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned direction was set aside with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>