( 1 ) THE question which calls for determination is whether, in the factual matrix disclosed in the pleadings of the parties to this petition, Section 395 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) could have been invoked by the Respondents with the intent of compulsorily acquiring the entire shareholding of the Petitioner, namely, AIG (Mauritius) LLC in the erstwhile respondent No. 2, Tata Cellular Limited, Respondent No. 1. Tata Televentures (Holdings) Limited, had in terms of its notice dated 24. 7. 2001, invoking Section 395 of the Act, required the Petitioner to sell its stake in Respondent No. 2 at a price of rs. 10/- per share for cash. Counsel for the parties have unanimously contended that I should pronounce on the preliminary issue of whether the said section has been properly and correctly invoked by Respondent No. 1. It is only in the event that this Court comes to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was authorised, competent and entitled in law to unilaterally purchase or requisition or expropriate the petitioner s holding in Respondent No. . 2, would the further question arise of whether the price fixed by Respondent No. 1 should