<?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>2021 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — AHMEDABAD BENCH—COURT NO. 2</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408792</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the applicant-company&#039;s request to dispense with meetings of equity shareholders and creditors concerning the merger scheme with its wholly-owned subsidiary, citing the absence of consent affidavits and non-compliance with its board resolution. The Tribunal mandated the convening of these meetings, appointing Mr. Kiran Shah as chairman and Mr. M.C. Gupta as scrutinizer. The company was instructed to issue notices to relevant authorities as per statutory requirements. Consequently, the application for dispensation was dismissed, necessitating adherence to procedural mandates for the merger process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647423" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — AHMEDABAD BENCH—COURT NO. 2</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408792</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the applicant-company&#039;s request to dispense with meetings of equity shareholders and creditors concerning the merger scheme with its wholly-owned subsidiary, citing the absence of consent affidavits and non-compliance with its board resolution. The Tribunal mandated the convening of these meetings, appointing Mr. Kiran Shah as chairman and Mr. M.C. Gupta as scrutinizer. The company was instructed to issue notices to relevant authorities as per statutory requirements. Consequently, the application for dispensation was dismissed, necessitating adherence to procedural mandates for the merger process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>