<?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>1924 (7) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311164</link>
    <description>The article examines challenges to an extraordinary general meeting notice, a special resolution for amalgamation, and related meeting proceedings under the Companies Act. It explains that disclosure in the notice was sufficient where the general nature of the business and the valuation basis were conveyed, and that non-circulation of the agreement did not invalidate the meeting when it was available for inspection. It also notes that a special resolution for amalgamation need not rest on a special power in the memorandum, that &quot;amalgamation&quot; may be used in a commercial sense, and that confirmatory steps, liquidator appointments, and the final agreement were upheld as authorised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 1924 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:36:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1924 (7) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311164</link>
      <description>The article examines challenges to an extraordinary general meeting notice, a special resolution for amalgamation, and related meeting proceedings under the Companies Act. It explains that disclosure in the notice was sufficient where the general nature of the business and the valuation basis were conveyed, and that non-circulation of the agreement did not invalidate the meeting when it was available for inspection. It also notes that a special resolution for amalgamation need not rest on a special power in the memorandum, that &quot;amalgamation&quot; may be used in a commercial sense, and that confirmatory steps, liquidator appointments, and the final agreement were upheld as authorised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 1924 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>