9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv., Mr. Divyanshu Srivastava, Adv. and Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR For the Respondent(s) Mr. Kaushik Chaterjee, Adv., Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR, Ms. Samriddhi, Adv. and Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. ORDER The present appeals are directed against the orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the NCLAT') impugned dated 29.11.2019 and 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lthough recorded a finding that respondent no.1, Ankit Mittal, was not holding 10% shareholding, which is a prerequisite for person being aggrieved in terms of Section 230(4) of the Companies Act, still considered appropriate to examine the scheme of amalgamation and arrived at the conclusion that the valuer has made valuation disregarding the methodology, methods or share entitlement ratio and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no shareholding in private limited companies (respondent nos.4 to 7) and no prejudice would be caused to any party if the scheme of amalgamation so far as respondent nos.4 to 7 with the appellant, to this limited extent is approved. The IA came to be dismissed by the NCLAT by a subsequent order dated 17.09.2021. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
