<?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>2011 (12) TMI 737 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287651</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the Company Law Board&#039;s order for the fair valuation of shares was dismissed. The court upheld the valuation by M/s. Vipin Aggarwal, emphasizing that the valuer&#039;s decision, made with the consent of both parties, is binding unless there is evidence of fraud or collusion. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding principles of natural justice, valuation date, and reliance on third-party reports were not accepted. The court affirmed that parties are bound by the valuer&#039;s decision if made honestly and in good faith. Additionally, the respondent agreed to let the appellant retain a Maruti Baleno car, which the court upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2020 10:20:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 737 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287651</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the Company Law Board&#039;s order for the fair valuation of shares was dismissed. The court upheld the valuation by M/s. Vipin Aggarwal, emphasizing that the valuer&#039;s decision, made with the consent of both parties, is binding unless there is evidence of fraud or collusion. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding principles of natural justice, valuation date, and reliance on third-party reports were not accepted. The court affirmed that parties are bound by the valuer&#039;s decision if made honestly and in good faith. Additionally, the respondent agreed to let the appellant retain a Maruti Baleno car, which the court upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>