https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99771 In sanctioning an amalgamation scheme, the Court accepted the exchange ratio as fair and reasonable because it was approved by the statutory majority and supported by auditors and an independent valuation firm, with no shown defect, mala fides, or unreliability. It construed section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as exempting prior Central Government approval where the undertakings are inter-connected, neither is dominant, and both produce the same goods, so approval under section 23(1) and (2) was unnecessary. The absence of separate notice to creditors did not defeat the scheme because the petitions were widely advertised, no creditor objected, and no prejudice was shown. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:01:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99771 In sanctioning an amalgamation scheme, the Court accepted the exchange ratio as fair and reasonable because it was approved by the statutory majority and supported by auditors and an independent valuation firm, with no shown defect, mala fides, or unreliability. It construed section 23(3) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as exempting prior Central Government approval where the undertakings are inter-connected, neither is dominant, and both produce the same goods, so approval under section 23(1) and (2) was unnecessary. The absence of separate notice to creditors did not defeat the scheme because the petitions were widely advertised, no creditor objected, and no prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99771