Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 394 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 393 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 55A in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Dinesh Vrajlal Lakhani vs Parke Davis (India) Ltd. on 23 July, 2003
42. The intervenor then submitted that though it is true that 99.99% in value had approved the scheme of amalgamation, the requisite majority of number of shareholders had not been obtained. He submitted that a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Vrajlal Lakhani v. Parke Davis (India) Ltd. was incorrect and that he desired to challenge the same. The Division Bench held as under:-
The Depositories Act, 1996
Hindustan Lever Employees' Union vs Hindustan Lever Limited And Ors on 24 October, 1994
In this regard, it is pertinent to note the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (Hindustan Lever Employees' Union v. Hindustan Lever Limited and Ors.) 1995 Supplementary (1) S.C.C. 499.