https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100655 Prior Central Government approval was not required for a proposed amalgamation because the objecting party failed to prove that the companies were interconnected undertakings attracting section 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The court held that interconnection under section 2(g) and the statutory conditions in section 20 had to be established by concrete facts, including actual control or customary obedience, before the approval requirement could arise. A director's separate role in another concern was insufficient by itself, and mere presumptions could not substitute for proof. The objection to sanction on that basis was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 14 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:32:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100655 Prior Central Government approval was not required for a proposed amalgamation because the objecting party failed to prove that the companies were interconnected undertakings attracting section 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The court held that interconnection under section 2(g) and the statutory conditions in section 20 had to be established by concrete facts, including actual control or customary obedience, before the approval requirement could arise. A director's separate role in another concern was insufficient by itself, and mere presumptions could not substitute for proof. The objection to sanction on that basis was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 14 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100655