<?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>2006 (10) TMI 513 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299513</link>
    <description>In a complete amalgamation, the authorised share capital of transferor companies may be clubbed with that of the transferee company without a separate levy of stamp duty or fee. The note also explains that a scheme providing for repayment to preference shareholders out of the security premium account attracts Rule 85 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 because it involves reduction of capital. Even so, the statutory meeting procedure may be dispensed with where all affected shareholders and relevant creditors have given written consent and compliance would serve no practical purpose. The scheme was sanctioned subject to these principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 15:44:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 513 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299513</link>
      <description>In a complete amalgamation, the authorised share capital of transferor companies may be clubbed with that of the transferee company without a separate levy of stamp duty or fee. The note also explains that a scheme providing for repayment to preference shareholders out of the security premium account attracts Rule 85 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 because it involves reduction of capital. Even so, the statutory meeting procedure may be dispensed with where all affected shareholders and relevant creditors have given written consent and compliance would serve no practical purpose. The scheme was sanctioned subject to these principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299513</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>