The judicial trend in this regard seems to show that Section 100 primarily is being used for more of objectionable objectives, for example in the leading case of Sandvik Asia the reason behind the Company’s reduction of share capital was to continue to remain a public company even after delisting of its shares, other reasons like reduction of administration costs , conversion to a private limited company in order to avoid greater regulations, are being widely used. Initially companies used Section 100 read with Section 391, however this practice was done away with in order to avoid the condition of a separate class meeting.
Squeeze out of minority shareholders
Squeeze out of minority shareholders
The judicial trend in this regard seems to show that Section 100 primarily is being used for more of objectionable objectives, for example in the leading case of Sandvik Asia the reason behind the Company’s reduction of share capital was to continue to remain a public company even after delisting of its shares, other reasons like reduction of administration costs , conversion to a private limited company in order to avoid greater regulations, are being widely used. Initially companies used Section 100 read with Section 391, however this practice was done away with in order to avoid the condition of a separate class meeting.
The judicial trend in this regard seems to show that Section 100 primarily is being used for more of objectionable objectives, for example in the leading case of Sandvik Asia the reason behind the Company’s reduction of share capital was to continue to remain a public company even after delisting of its shares, other reasons like reduction of administration costs , conversion to a private limited company in order to avoid greater regulations, are being widely used. Initially companies used Section 100 read with Section 391, however this practice was done away with in order to avoid the condition of a separate class meeting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment