<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1971 (3) TMI 129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289211</link>
    <description>An entity falls within the MRTP Act&#039;s definition of &quot;undertaking&quot; only if it is actually engaged at the material time in producing goods or providing services; mere legal capacity, past status, or preparatory acts are insufficient. Applying that test, the old Central Bank was found not to be carrying on banking or any other service activity after nationalisation, as the relied-on steps were only incidental to the proposed amalgamation. The phrase &quot;any other undertaking&quot; in section 23(1) was held to take its meaning from the statutory definition in section 2(v), so no departure was justified and prior Central Government approval was not required for the amalgamation scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:40:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (3) TMI 129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289211</link>
      <description>An entity falls within the MRTP Act&#039;s definition of &quot;undertaking&quot; only if it is actually engaged at the material time in producing goods or providing services; mere legal capacity, past status, or preparatory acts are insufficient. Applying that test, the old Central Bank was found not to be carrying on banking or any other service activity after nationalisation, as the relied-on steps were only incidental to the proposed amalgamation. The phrase &quot;any other undertaking&quot; in section 23(1) was held to take its meaning from the statutory definition in section 2(v), so no departure was justified and prior Central Government approval was not required for the amalgamation scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>