Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1995 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (2) TMI 293 - SC - Companies LawWhether the technology can be obtained directly rather than going through the process of a joint venture? Whether the technology indigenously would be adequate to achieve the objective of running HAL profitably? In the event such a joint venture proposal as proposed by HAL management materialises, how best the interest of the employees can be protected ? The penicillin plant of HAL is a profit centre. Whether such a proposal for joint venture would leave HAL with (non-profit making centres ? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As explained by the respondents that the said order of the Minister of State was revised by the Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers even before the issuance of the directive. Moreover, Torrent having entered the picture very late cannot complain of lack of fuller consideration. It is equally evident that since it was already in the process of setting up its own plant and also because its technology too was that of Biotica of Slovakia, which was already rejected in the case of PBG, no useful purpose would be served even by asking a reconsideration of its proposals. Before parting with this matter, we must say that the MoU entered into with MGB is subject to the final approval of the Government of India, as expressly provided in the directive dated June 20, 1994. We are sure that the Government would examine all the terms of the MoU carefully before according its approval. It is obvious that it is always open to the Government to seek such modification of the terms of the MoU as it thinks appropriate and as are feasible. But if it approves the MoU in the present form or in the modified firm as the case may be, it is but in the interest of all concerned that the project is given a concrete shape without any further loss of time.
|