https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104147 An increase in share capital that merely dilutes voting strength does not by itself vary shareholders' rights under sections 106 and 107 of the Companies Act, 1956; the rights attached to the class remain unchanged, so that challenge failed. Further allotment of equity shares to a third party was valid under section 81 because the company had a special resolution authorising the allotment and the board acted within that authority; the allotment was therefore not illegal. Prior approval of the BIFR was not required under section 22(2)(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as the rehabilitation scheme did not involve a takeover or change in management, so the allotment was not hit by that restriction. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:49:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104147 An increase in share capital that merely dilutes voting strength does not by itself vary shareholders' rights under sections 106 and 107 of the Companies Act, 1956; the rights attached to the class remain unchanged, so that challenge failed. Further allotment of equity shares to a third party was valid under section 81 because the company had a special resolution authorising the allotment and the board acted within that authority; the allotment was therefore not illegal. Prior approval of the BIFR was not required under section 22(2)(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as the rehabilitation scheme did not involve a takeover or change in management, so the allotment was not hit by that restriction. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104147