https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261061 In a proposed amalgamation scheme, the court found material inconsistencies in the stated share exchange ratios and related particulars, including incorrect mapping of ratios to the transferor companies and a wrong reproduction of one ratio in the scheme. Those discrepancies were treated as significant because applicants seeking dispensation of meetings must place correct and internally consistent facts before the court, even in a wholly owned subsidiary structure. The application was therefore not accepted in its present form, and the applicants were directed to file an affidavit clarifying the discrepancies. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261061 In a proposed amalgamation scheme, the court found material inconsistencies in the stated share exchange ratios and related particulars, including incorrect mapping of ratios to the transferor companies and a wrong reproduction of one ratio in the scheme. Those discrepancies were treated as significant because applicants seeking dispensation of meetings must place correct and internally consistent facts before the court, even in a wholly owned subsidiary structure. The application was therefore not accepted in its present form, and the applicants were directed to file an affidavit clarifying the discrepancies. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261061