Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notice convening the shareholders' meeting for consideration of the scheme of amalgamation was invalid for want of 21 days' clear notice and whether the meeting was liable to be postponed.
Analysis: The notice was despatched by post on 28-9-1998 with the statutory statement under section 393 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Court applied section 53 of the Companies Act, 1956 to hold that service by post was deemed effected 48 hours after posting. On that basis, the notice was treated as served on 1-10-1998, which satisfied the requirement of 21 days' clear notice under rule 73 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1953. No other ground for postponement was pressed for decision.
Conclusion: The notice was valid and the meeting was not liable to be postponed.