https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220597 A Company Court order on a withdrawn amalgamation petition was modified in part: costs were largely upheld because the proceedings had required repeated court time and government participation, but the apportionment was adjusted. A blanket five-year bar on filing a fresh amalgamation application was set aside because a litigant cannot be prevented from approaching the court in accordance with law, though disclosure obligations in future proceedings were preserved. The direction for investigation was maintained because a previously ordered inquiry could not be frustrated by later withdrawal of the petition, and the direction was treated as a statutory declaration under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956 rather than a command for a particular mode of investigation. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220597 A Company Court order on a withdrawn amalgamation petition was modified in part: costs were largely upheld because the proceedings had required repeated court time and government participation, but the apportionment was adjusted. A blanket five-year bar on filing a fresh amalgamation application was set aside because a litigant cannot be prevented from approaching the court in accordance with law, though disclosure obligations in future proceedings were preserved. The direction for investigation was maintained because a previously ordered inquiry could not be frustrated by later withdrawal of the petition, and the direction was treated as a statutory declaration under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956 rather than a command for a particular mode of investigation. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220597