https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98826 The court confirmed the reduction of the petitioner-company's share capital despite the lack of the mandatory 21 days' notice as required by section 171 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Registrar of Companies objected to the confirmation due to the absence of proper notice, but the court ruled that post-meeting consent by shareholders, except one, was sufficient to validate the resolution. The court emphasized that shareholders' informed consent could cure notice deficiencies and ordered the reduction to be confirmed and advertised in specified publications. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:59:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98826 The court confirmed the reduction of the petitioner-company's share capital despite the lack of the mandatory 21 days' notice as required by section 171 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Registrar of Companies objected to the confirmation due to the absence of proper notice, but the court ruled that post-meeting consent by shareholders, except one, was sufficient to validate the resolution. The court emphasized that shareholders' informed consent could cure notice deficiencies and ordered the reduction to be confirmed and advertised in specified publications. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98826