https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412516 The NCLAT rejected the application for modification/clarification, affirming the rejection of the Scheme of Amalgamation and Arrangement due to valuation discrepancies and lack of credibility. Jurisdictional issues between NCLT Chennai and NCLT Mumbai were noted, emphasizing the need for approval from all relevant authorities. The validity of the scheme for Private Companies was disputed, with objections from the Regional Director considered valid. Legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable. The NCLAT concluded that Rule 11 could not be used to selectively enforce the scheme, leading to the transfer of the Contempt Case record to the Chennai Bench for further action. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:31:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412516 The NCLAT rejected the application for modification/clarification, affirming the rejection of the Scheme of Amalgamation and Arrangement due to valuation discrepancies and lack of credibility. Jurisdictional issues between NCLT Chennai and NCLT Mumbai were noted, emphasizing the need for approval from all relevant authorities. The validity of the scheme for Private Companies was disputed, with objections from the Regional Director considered valid. Legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable. The NCLAT concluded that Rule 11 could not be used to selectively enforce the scheme, leading to the transfer of the Contempt Case record to the Chennai Bench for further action. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412516