https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99658 Section 372(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as not requiring prior approval of the company in general meeting or of the Central Government before an investment could be made, because the provision omitted the word "previous" used elsewhere in the Act where advance approval was intended. A notification could not add a requirement not found in the statute, so refusal of approval on that basis was invalid. The power to direct sale of the investment under section 373 was also found inapplicable on the facts, leaving no authority to compel divestment. As section 372(4) did not impose a prior-approval condition, proceedings under section 374 for alleged non-compliance were unsustainable and were set aside. en-us Thu, 05 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:12:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99658 Section 372(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as not requiring prior approval of the company in general meeting or of the Central Government before an investment could be made, because the provision omitted the word "previous" used elsewhere in the Act where advance approval was intended. A notification could not add a requirement not found in the statute, so refusal of approval on that basis was invalid. The power to direct sale of the investment under section 373 was also found inapplicable on the facts, leaving no authority to compel divestment. As section 372(4) did not impose a prior-approval condition, proceedings under section 374 for alleged non-compliance were unsustainable and were set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99658