https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98855 An investment company that only manages its own investments was held not to render a direct remunerated "service" to potential users, so it was not an "undertaking" under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; prior Central Government approval for amalgamation was therefore unnecessary. The proposed exchange ratio in the amalgamation scheme was treated as fair and equitable because it was supported by valuation work from two chartered accountancy firms, shareholder approval, and no material evidence of fraud, undue influence, or unfairness. Joinder of the Union of India was refused because statutory notice under the Companies Act was sufficient and a court cannot create a right of appeal by ordering joinder. en-us Thu, 22 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:47:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98855 An investment company that only manages its own investments was held not to render a direct remunerated "service" to potential users, so it was not an "undertaking" under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; prior Central Government approval for amalgamation was therefore unnecessary. The proposed exchange ratio in the amalgamation scheme was treated as fair and equitable because it was supported by valuation work from two chartered accountancy firms, shareholder approval, and no material evidence of fraud, undue influence, or unfairness. Joinder of the Union of India was refused because statutory notice under the Companies Act was sufficient and a court cannot create a right of appeal by ordering joinder. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98855