https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102558 A proposed amalgamation scheme could not be restrained by interim injunction while it remained under consideration before the Company Court, because such restraint would interfere with the Companies Act process and the alleged anti-competitive impact depended on evidence; the injunction was therefore refused. The MRTP Commission retained jurisdiction after the 1991 amendments to examine the competitive effect of a sanctioned amalgamation, because the Company Court's approval function and the Commission's competition-control powers operate in distinct fields; the complaint could therefore proceed to enquiry. A sanctioned amalgamation could still be treated as an arrangement whose trade-practice effects were examinable under the MRTP Act, and the Commission could issue appropriate orders if anti-competitive consequences were found. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102558 A proposed amalgamation scheme could not be restrained by interim injunction while it remained under consideration before the Company Court, because such restraint would interfere with the Companies Act process and the alleged anti-competitive impact depended on evidence; the injunction was therefore refused. The MRTP Commission retained jurisdiction after the 1991 amendments to examine the competitive effect of a sanctioned amalgamation, because the Company Court's approval function and the Commission's competition-control powers operate in distinct fields; the complaint could therefore proceed to enquiry. A sanctioned amalgamation could still be treated as an arrangement whose trade-practice effects were examinable under the MRTP Act, and the Commission could issue appropriate orders if anti-competitive consequences were found. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 19 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102558