https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114071 The court held that a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a holding company is considered a subsidiary of the holding company. It concluded that the activities of a wholly owned subsidiary can be treated as those of its holding company. The court found the petitioners guilty of suppression of material facts and making false statements. It determined that the tender process and the selection of respondent No. 4 were legal and in the public interest. Respondent No. 4 was deemed eligible to participate in the tender process as a manufacturer. The writ petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114071 The court held that a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a holding company is considered a subsidiary of the holding company. It concluded that the activities of a wholly owned subsidiary can be treated as those of its holding company. The court found the petitioners guilty of suppression of material facts and making false statements. It determined that the tender process and the selection of respondent No. 4 were legal and in the public interest. Respondent No. 4 was deemed eligible to participate in the tender process as a manufacturer. The writ petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114071