<?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>2022 (3) TMI 201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419163</link>
    <description>The court concluded that ICICI Bank India or the Purchaser needed to obtain leave before enforcing the pledge, but the transaction was deemed bona fide. The shares were to undergo fresh valuation, with any additional consideration benefiting Zylog. The Purchaser was directed to fulfill these requirements, or the disposition would be voided. Both applications were disposed of, allowing parties to return if needed, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:58:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419163</link>
      <description>The court concluded that ICICI Bank India or the Purchaser needed to obtain leave before enforcing the pledge, but the transaction was deemed bona fide. The shares were to undergo fresh valuation, with any additional consideration benefiting Zylog. The Purchaser was directed to fulfill these requirements, or the disposition would be voided. Both applications were disposed of, allowing parties to return if needed, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>