Companies Act, 2013
Similar Posts
In Re: Mohan Exports India Ltd. vs. Tarun Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
In case the proposed scheme is bona fide and genuine and is not against public interest then mere fact that certain immovable properties or right to recover debts etc. are transferred to the transferee company would not mean that they are in violation of any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. However, if such scheme is only with the ulterior motive to transfer the immovable properties without payment of Government or statutory dues, then the same would be against the public interest and the Court will not approve the scheme.
Progress Property Co Ltd vs. Moorgarth Group Ltd
Progress Property Co Ltd vs. Moorgarth Group Ltd. This case was Before Lord Phillips, President, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke and the judgement was given on 8 December 2010, referring to the common law prohibition on the unlawful distribution of capital by a company through, inter alia, the sale of its assets…
Case List: Gift of Shares to Company?
Case List Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle vs. Nadatur Holdings and Investments (P.) Ltd., 2012, Karnataka High Court;Â [2012] 210 TAXMAN 597 (Kar); M.K. Kuppuraj and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax, 2002, Madras High Court;Â [2002] 258 ITR 412 (Mad).
Difference between Slump Sale and Asset Purchase
Definition of Slump Sale As per S. 2(42C), of Finance Act, 1999, ‘slump sale’ means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities in such sales. As per Sect 180 of Companies Act, 2013- “180. (1) The Board…
In Re: Indusind Bank Ltd.
CITATION: (2004) 4 CompLJ 394 Bom DECIDED: May 6, 2004 BEFORE: Bombay High Court FACTS A company petition was filed by the petitioner IndusInd Bank Limited for sanction of Scheme of Arrangement between Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (‘transferor company’) and IndusInd Bank Limited (‘transferee company’) and their respective members and creditors. The Regional Director’s main objection was that…
Makhan Lal Jain and Anr. v. The Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Makhan Lal Jain and Anr. v. The Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1953 All 326 Facts: The petitioners are two share-holders in the Amrit Banaspati Company Limited. They have made various allegations of mismanagement and foul play against the company, its Directors and Managing Agents. It is contended on behalf of the opposite…