https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269543 The governing professional merger and demerger rules required merger before demerger, did not require concurrence from continuing partners, and permitted demerger by 75% or more of the continuing partners after due notice. On that basis, a demerger of the merged firm was treated as valid even though the notice referred to the former firm name, because that did not breach the rules. The allegation of forgery also failed, as the notice could specify an earlier operative date and the materials did not show any legal or factual bar to doing so. The challenge was therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:34:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269543 The governing professional merger and demerger rules required merger before demerger, did not require concurrence from continuing partners, and permitted demerger by 75% or more of the continuing partners after due notice. On that basis, a demerger of the merged firm was treated as valid even though the notice referred to the former firm name, because that did not breach the rules. The allegation of forgery also failed, as the notice could specify an earlier operative date and the materials did not show any legal or factual bar to doing so. The challenge was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269543