<?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>2020 (3) TMI 100 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392956</link>
    <description>A scheme of arrangement may be refused where the company withholds material facts, including SEBI and SAT proceedings, from shareholders, creditors and the Court, because full disclosure is necessary for valid stakeholder consent and judicial approval. The Gujarat High Court also treated a scheme based on approvals obtained years earlier as stale, holding that a long time gap can undermine the commercial viability of the proposal and justify refusal of sanction. A BIFR-related objection was raised, but later deregistration meant it did not displace the Court&#039;s refusal to interfere. The note emphasises that a fresh scheme may still be pursued with proper disclosures and renewed mandate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 11:30:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 100 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392956</link>
      <description>A scheme of arrangement may be refused where the company withholds material facts, including SEBI and SAT proceedings, from shareholders, creditors and the Court, because full disclosure is necessary for valid stakeholder consent and judicial approval. The Gujarat High Court also treated a scheme based on approvals obtained years earlier as stale, holding that a long time gap can undermine the commercial viability of the proposal and justify refusal of sanction. A BIFR-related objection was raised, but later deregistration meant it did not displace the Court&#039;s refusal to interfere. The note emphasises that a fresh scheme may still be pursued with proper disclosures and renewed mandate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>