<?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>Full disclosure of material facts is required before a scheme of arrangement can be sanctioned. SEBI and SAT proceedings connected with an investor&#039;s dealings with the applicant and group companies were material and had not been disclosed to stakeholders or the Court, justifying refusal of sanction. Stakeholder approvals obtained in 2008 could not support implementation in 2015 because the substantial delay made the scheme stale and undermined its commercial viability. Although the BIFR reference was later deregistered, that development did not warrant interference in the overall circumstances. A fresh or modified scheme could be pursued with a renewed stakeholder 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>Full disclosure of material facts is required before a scheme of arrangement can be sanctioned. SEBI and SAT proceedings connected with an investor&#039;s dealings with the applicant and group companies were material and had not been disclosed to stakeholders or the Court, justifying refusal of sanction. Stakeholder approvals obtained in 2008 could not support implementation in 2015 because the substantial delay made the scheme stale and undermined its commercial viability. Although the BIFR reference was later deregistered, that development did not warrant interference in the overall circumstances. A fresh or modified scheme could be pursued with a renewed stakeholder 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>