https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97658 A dissenting shareholder could resist a statutory share acquisition only by affirmatively proving that the scheme was unfair under section 209 of the Companies Act 1948. The burden lay on the applicant, and the fact that the statutory majority had accepted the offer weighed against interference. Although the circular was criticised for lacking detail and the scheme was capable of improvement, there was no bad faith, deception, or intentional misleading, and the offer was not shown to be patently unfair. The applicant therefore failed to establish unfairness, and the challenge to transfer failed. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:59:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97658 A dissenting shareholder could resist a statutory share acquisition only by affirmatively proving that the scheme was unfair under section 209 of the Companies Act 1948. The burden lay on the applicant, and the fact that the statutory majority had accepted the offer weighed against interference. Although the circular was criticised for lacking detail and the scheme was capable of improvement, there was no bad faith, deception, or intentional misleading, and the offer was not shown to be patently unfair. The applicant therefore failed to establish unfairness, and the challenge to transfer failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 22 Jul 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97658