https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99688 Under Explanation 1(vii) to section 2(g)(iii)(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, inter-connected undertaking status required strict satisfaction of the statutory conditions: at least one-third of the voting power in each body corporate had to be exercised or controlled by the same person or body corporate, and the control had to relate to a matter concerning each company. The Court treated the language as clear and rejected a broader construction. On the facts, the foreign holding company had no independent shareholding in the petitioner and there was no common matter linking the petitioner with M.B. India Ltd. The petitioner and M.B. India Ltd. were therefore not inter-connected undertakings, and compulsory registration under section 26 was not attracted. en-us Thu, 26 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:56:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99688 Under Explanation 1(vii) to section 2(g)(iii)(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, inter-connected undertaking status required strict satisfaction of the statutory conditions: at least one-third of the voting power in each body corporate had to be exercised or controlled by the same person or body corporate, and the control had to relate to a matter concerning each company. The Court treated the language as clear and rejected a broader construction. On the facts, the foreign holding company had no independent shareholding in the petitioner and there was no common matter linking the petitioner with M.B. India Ltd. The petitioner and M.B. India Ltd. were therefore not inter-connected undertakings, and compulsory registration under section 26 was not attracted. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 26 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99688