https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105928 A writ challenge to an extraordinary general meeting was found unsupported because the petitioner-association failed to show that its office-bearers or relevant members were shareholders, and the meeting had already taken place, leaving the request to postpone it infructuous. In addition, the Court treated section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as a self-contained mechanism for banking amalgamations: shareholder approval is followed by Reserve Bank of India sanction and valuation of dissenting shareholders' shares. On that basis, the Court declined to examine the fairness of the swap ratio or substitute its view on valuation, leaving those matters to the statutory authority. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:07:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105928 A writ challenge to an extraordinary general meeting was found unsupported because the petitioner-association failed to show that its office-bearers or relevant members were shareholders, and the meeting had already taken place, leaving the request to postpone it infructuous. In addition, the Court treated section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as a self-contained mechanism for banking amalgamations: shareholder approval is followed by Reserve Bank of India sanction and valuation of dissenting shareholders' shares. On that basis, the Court declined to examine the fairness of the swap ratio or substitute its view on valuation, leaving those matters to the statutory authority. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105928