https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98606 An interlocutory injunction was refused because the company was seeking only a preliminary power to amalgamate, while the actual scheme and any statutory application would come later and remain subject to court scrutiny, notice to affected persons and other safeguards under the Companies Act. The notice and explanatory statement were held sufficient for a resolution of this limited nature, since fuller financial and commercial material would be required only at the stage of a concrete amalgamation scheme. The notice was not invalid merely because it was issued under board authority rather than by the managing agents, and the allegation of mala fides was not established. Interlocutory restraint was therefore unwarranted. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:51:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98606 An interlocutory injunction was refused because the company was seeking only a preliminary power to amalgamate, while the actual scheme and any statutory application would come later and remain subject to court scrutiny, notice to affected persons and other safeguards under the Companies Act. The notice and explanatory statement were held sufficient for a resolution of this limited nature, since fuller financial and commercial material would be required only at the stage of a concrete amalgamation scheme. The notice was not invalid merely because it was issued under board authority rather than by the managing agents, and the allegation of mala fides was not established. Interlocutory restraint was therefore unwarranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 16 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98606