https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349604 A challenge to a scheme of amalgamation failed because no specific illegality or perversity in the valuation exercise was shown. The valuation and fairness opinion were prepared by professional institutions, and completing multiple steps on the same day did not by itself invalidate the process. Compliance with the SEBI circulars of 4 February 2013 and 21 May 2013, along with the disclosure materials required under the Companies Act, 1956 and Clause 24(f) of the Listing Agreement, was recorded. The companies were treated as going concerns, so surplus assets did not require separate net asset valuation. In the absence of demonstrated defect, interference with the approved scheme was unwarranted. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:00:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349604 A challenge to a scheme of amalgamation failed because no specific illegality or perversity in the valuation exercise was shown. The valuation and fairness opinion were prepared by professional institutions, and completing multiple steps on the same day did not by itself invalidate the process. Compliance with the SEBI circulars of 4 February 2013 and 21 May 2013, along with the disclosure materials required under the Companies Act, 1956 and Clause 24(f) of the Listing Agreement, was recorded. The companies were treated as going concerns, so surplus assets did not require separate net asset valuation. In the absence of demonstrated defect, interference with the approved scheme was unwarranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349604