https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199311 A shareholder challenge to a proposed corporate resolution failed because the notice and explanatory statement were not required to recite every contingent regulatory requirement, and the omission to mention the absence of permission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act did not amount to suppression of a material fact. Section 22 was also not made out prima facie as a bar to the proposed undertaking, particularly where the company had been incorporated and substantial steps had already been taken before the Act commenced, and the Central Government's correspondence indicated that the provision did not apply. On balance of convenience, an injunction was unwarranted because the plaintiff lacked a strong prima facie case and the corporate project had already advanced. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:17:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199311 A shareholder challenge to a proposed corporate resolution failed because the notice and explanatory statement were not required to recite every contingent regulatory requirement, and the omission to mention the absence of permission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act did not amount to suppression of a material fact. Section 22 was also not made out prima facie as a bar to the proposed undertaking, particularly where the company had been incorporated and substantial steps had already been taken before the Act commenced, and the Central Government's correspondence indicated that the provision did not apply. On balance of convenience, an injunction was unwarranted because the plaintiff lacked a strong prima facie case and the corporate project had already advanced. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199311