https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96921 A dissenting shareholder cannot resist compulsory acquisition under the Companies Act 1929 merely by saying further information would have been desirable. Where the statutory majority has approved the scheme, the scheme is treated as prima facie fair, and the burden lies on the dissentient to show unfairness or some other sufficient reason for the court to intervene. A bare complaint about inadequate disclosure, without proving that the offer or scheme was unfair, is insufficient to displace the statutory process. The practical effect is that compulsory acquisition remains binding on the minority unless unfairness or another proper ground is affirmatively established. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 1945 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:40:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96921 A dissenting shareholder cannot resist compulsory acquisition under the Companies Act 1929 merely by saying further information would have been desirable. Where the statutory majority has approved the scheme, the scheme is treated as prima facie fair, and the burden lies on the dissentient to show unfairness or some other sufficient reason for the court to intervene. A bare complaint about inadequate disclosure, without proving that the offer or scheme was unfair, is insufficient to displace the statutory process. The practical effect is that compulsory acquisition remains binding on the minority unless unfairness or another proper ground is affirmatively established. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 Feb 1945 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96921