https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99160 The Bombay HC construed section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 to cover the amalgamation of interconnected undertakings that were not dominant undertakings. It held that "produce the same goods" must be read with the statutory definitions of "goods" and "undertaking", and is not limited to marketable end-products; production of coal for raw material use or home consumption also falls within the expression. On the undisputed figures, neither undertaking separately nor both together was dominant, so the scheme met the section 23(3) exception and prior Central Government approval under section 23(1) and (2) was not required. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:29:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99160 The Bombay HC construed section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 to cover the amalgamation of interconnected undertakings that were not dominant undertakings. It held that "produce the same goods" must be read with the statutory definitions of "goods" and "undertaking", and is not limited to marketable end-products; production of coal for raw material use or home consumption also falls within the expression. On the undisputed figures, neither undertaking separately nor both together was dominant, so the scheme met the section 23(3) exception and prior Central Government approval under section 23(1) and (2) was not required. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99160