https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299252 A subsequent challenge to a sanctioned amalgamation scheme was held barred to the extent earlier proceedings had already decided the relevant issues, because the applicant companies' controlling shareholders had effectively represented their interests and stood as privies. The Court also found that the meeting approving the scheme had been illegally convened and conducted, with defective notices and other irregularities amounting to fraud on shareholders and the Court. However, the challenge failed because the applicants had constructive notice, had acquiesced, and approached the Court after inordinate and uncondonable delay. Relief was therefore refused and the application dismissed. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Dec 2021 13:19:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299252 A subsequent challenge to a sanctioned amalgamation scheme was held barred to the extent earlier proceedings had already decided the relevant issues, because the applicant companies' controlling shareholders had effectively represented their interests and stood as privies. The Court also found that the meeting approving the scheme had been illegally convened and conducted, with defective notices and other irregularities amounting to fraud on shareholders and the Court. However, the challenge failed because the applicants had constructive notice, had acquiesced, and approached the Court after inordinate and uncondonable delay. Relief was therefore refused and the application dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299252