https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98844 A proposed investment was treated as creating an inter-connected undertaking under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act because the statutory deeming rule applied on the facts, making prior Central Government permission necessary. The Court further held that shareholders had to be told of the absence of that permission before the meeting, so the notice and explanatory statement were invalid to that extent. Disclosure objections based on the collaboration agreement and the absence of an industrial licence failed, and a later increase in share capital did not defeat confirmation of the resolution. Injunctive relief was granted against giving effect to the impugned resolution, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:12:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98844 A proposed investment was treated as creating an inter-connected undertaking under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act because the statutory deeming rule applied on the facts, making prior Central Government permission necessary. The Court further held that shareholders had to be told of the absence of that permission before the meeting, so the notice and explanatory statement were invalid to that extent. Disclosure objections based on the collaboration agreement and the absence of an industrial licence failed, and a later increase in share capital did not defeat confirmation of the resolution. Injunctive relief was granted against giving effect to the impugned resolution, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98844