https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194811 An application under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 could not be used to obtain post-sanction directions that would alter or frustrate an implemented amalgamation scheme, because inherent powers do not permit the company court to put the clock back or grant fresh substantive relief inconsistent with the scheme. The proper remedy for such grievances lay elsewhere. On the alleged failure to list the resultant company under Clause 3.7, the record showed continuing efforts to secure listing through approvals, merchant bankers, and regulatory processes, with no proof of deliberate default or lack of bona fides. No judicial interference was warranted. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194811 An application under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 could not be used to obtain post-sanction directions that would alter or frustrate an implemented amalgamation scheme, because inherent powers do not permit the company court to put the clock back or grant fresh substantive relief inconsistent with the scheme. The proper remedy for such grievances lay elsewhere. On the alleged failure to list the resultant company under Clause 3.7, the record showed continuing efforts to secure listing through approvals, merchant bankers, and regulatory processes, with no proof of deliberate default or lack of bona fides. No judicial interference was warranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 07 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194811