https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795486 A subsidiary relationship under Section 4(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 required the prescribed shareholding relationship or independent power to control the composition of the board. Educomp held no shares in ESSPL, all of whose shares were held by two individuals, and no material showed that Educomp could appoint or remove all or a majority of ESSPL's directors. Financial support, business arrangements and guarantees could not replace these statutory requirements. The Companies Act, 2013 definition of control was inapplicable to the relevant period. ESSPL was therefore not Educomp's subsidiary, and related-party transaction allegations based on the contrary finding could not stand. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:42:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795486 A subsidiary relationship under Section 4(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 required the prescribed shareholding relationship or independent power to control the composition of the board. Educomp held no shares in ESSPL, all of whose shares were held by two individuals, and no material showed that Educomp could appoint or remove all or a majority of ESSPL's directors. Financial support, business arrangements and guarantees could not replace these statutory requirements. The Companies Act, 2013 definition of control was inapplicable to the relevant period. ESSPL was therefore not Educomp's subsidiary, and related-party transaction allegations based on the contrary finding could not stand. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795486