<?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>2024 (11) TMI 298 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761312</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the union had notice of the sanctioned demerger scheme because public notices, annual-report disclosure, and long-standing negotiations showed awareness and acquiescence. It further construed the scheme as transferring only the staff, workmen, and employees specifically identified for the ATM and Cash Management Division, not all employees of the transferor company, because the express language confined transfer to the specified division and an expanded reading would impermissibly alter the sanctioned arrangement. A belated miscellaneous application challenging implementation was therefore barred by limitation, and the tribunal could not rewrite the clear terms of the sanctioned scheme under the guise of interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:58:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 298 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761312</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the union had notice of the sanctioned demerger scheme because public notices, annual-report disclosure, and long-standing negotiations showed awareness and acquiescence. It further construed the scheme as transferring only the staff, workmen, and employees specifically identified for the ATM and Cash Management Division, not all employees of the transferor company, because the express language confined transfer to the specified division and an expanded reading would impermissibly alter the sanctioned arrangement. A belated miscellaneous application challenging implementation was therefore barred by limitation, and the tribunal could not rewrite the clear terms of the sanctioned scheme under the guise of interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>