https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101824 A prior or collateral breach of the investment restrictions under section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not by itself prevent sanction of an amalgamation scheme under section 391. The Court treated the alleged section 372 default as a past and separate transaction unrelated to the proposed arrangement, and noted that the Act provided a specific penal remedy for contravention under section 374. The transferee-company's earlier shareholding changes and compliance history did not create a statutory bar to approval of the scheme, particularly where the official liquidator reported no objection. Accordingly, the amalgamation petitions were allowed. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:21:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101824 A prior or collateral breach of the investment restrictions under section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not by itself prevent sanction of an amalgamation scheme under section 391. The Court treated the alleged section 372 default as a past and separate transaction unrelated to the proposed arrangement, and noted that the Act provided a specific penal remedy for contravention under section 374. The transferee-company's earlier shareholding changes and compliance history did not create a statutory bar to approval of the scheme, particularly where the official liquidator reported no objection. Accordingly, the amalgamation petitions were allowed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 09 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101824