https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214337 A subsequent challenge to a sanctioned amalgamation scheme was held barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata and acquiescence because the same grievance had already been finally decided in earlier proceedings involving the controlling family interests, who were treated as privies or alter ego of the applicant companies. The Court relied on finality of the earlier decisions, the challengers' unexplained delay, and the fact that the scheme had long been implemented. Once that preliminary bar applied, the Court held that findings on notice, the conduct of the meeting, fraud and sanction on the merits ought not to have been recorded, and those ancillary findings were set aside. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Feb 2013 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214337 A subsequent challenge to a sanctioned amalgamation scheme was held barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata and acquiescence because the same grievance had already been finally decided in earlier proceedings involving the controlling family interests, who were treated as privies or alter ego of the applicant companies. The Court relied on finality of the earlier decisions, the challengers' unexplained delay, and the fact that the scheme had long been implemented. Once that preliminary bar applied, the Court held that findings on notice, the conduct of the meeting, fraud and sanction on the merits ought not to have been recorded, and those ancillary findings were set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214337