<?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>2014 (5) TMI 1241 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459869</link>
    <description>Bombay HC sanctioned a demerger scheme of arrangement, holding that courts lack jurisdiction to examine matters within commercial wisdom of creditors and members. The court must only ensure statutory procedures are followed and the scheme is just, fair and reasonable. Once a share exchange ratio is determined by chartered accountants and accepted by majority shareholders and creditors, courts cannot substitute their own view. The objecting creditor failed to demonstrate how the scheme prejudiced any class, merely suggesting alternative valuation methods. Business efficiency and commercial prudence justified the demerger despite one creditor&#039;s unsatisfied secured debts. The scheme was sanctioned as commercial wisdom should be respected absent clear unfairness or public harm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2025 12:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 1241 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459869</link>
      <description>Bombay HC sanctioned a demerger scheme of arrangement, holding that courts lack jurisdiction to examine matters within commercial wisdom of creditors and members. The court must only ensure statutory procedures are followed and the scheme is just, fair and reasonable. Once a share exchange ratio is determined by chartered accountants and accepted by majority shareholders and creditors, courts cannot substitute their own view. The objecting creditor failed to demonstrate how the scheme prejudiced any class, merely suggesting alternative valuation methods. Business efficiency and commercial prudence justified the demerger despite one creditor&#039;s unsatisfied secured debts. The scheme was sanctioned as commercial wisdom should be respected absent clear unfairness or public harm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>