<?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>2025 (8) TMI 1830 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469312</link>
    <description>A sanctioned demerger scheme was described as vesting the gym business and related movable assets, including shares held by the demerged company, in the resulting company by operation of law without further act or deed. The note further records that later assertions of extinguishment, buy-back, or transfer back were not supported by reliable shareholder records, share certificates, board resolutions, or proof of payment. On that reasoning, inconsistent private arrangements could not displace the vesting said to arise under the scheme, and the liquidator&#039;s claim over the subject shares was upheld in the text.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 21:16:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1830 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469312</link>
      <description>A sanctioned demerger scheme was described as vesting the gym business and related movable assets, including shares held by the demerged company, in the resulting company by operation of law without further act or deed. The note further records that later assertions of extinguishment, buy-back, or transfer back were not supported by reliable shareholder records, share certificates, board resolutions, or proof of payment. On that reasoning, inconsistent private arrangements could not displace the vesting said to arise under the scheme, and the liquidator&#039;s claim over the subject shares was upheld in the text.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>