https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753350 The NCLAT allowed an appeal challenging the NCLT's modification of a demerger scheme's appointed date. The NCLT had incorrectly altered the appointed date from the scheme-specified date to the order pronouncement date under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT held that once statutory provisions are complied with and no legal violations exist, the NCLT has only supervisory jurisdiction and cannot override commercial wisdom of approving parties. Changing the appointed date would have serious financial implications. The tribunal's reliance on Sterlite Port precedent was misplaced, as that case actually supported retaining the scheme's original appointed date. The NCLAT restored the appointed date as originally fixed in the demerger scheme. en-us Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753350 The NCLAT allowed an appeal challenging the NCLT's modification of a demerger scheme's appointed date. The NCLT had incorrectly altered the appointed date from the scheme-specified date to the order pronouncement date under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT held that once statutory provisions are complied with and no legal violations exist, the NCLT has only supervisory jurisdiction and cannot override commercial wisdom of approving parties. Changing the appointed date would have serious financial implications. The tribunal's reliance on Sterlite Port precedent was misplaced, as that case actually supported retaining the scheme's original appointed date. The NCLAT restored the appointed date as originally fixed in the demerger scheme. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753350