It is seen that Section 232(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 uses the word ‘may’ which introduces an element of discretion to the Tribunal to be exercised in the interest of justice in appropriate situations. It is evident from the aforesaid citations that the High Courts have exercised this discretion dispensing with the requirement of convening the meetings, if the Bench is satisfied in all respects. Section 232 is a specific provision carved out by the Legislature when both conditions maintained in clauses (a) and (b) of sub- Section (1) of Section 232 are met. In the instant case the amalgamation sought for is between a Wholly Owned Subsidiary and the Holding Company. The point which needs to be noted is whether such an arrangement alters the rights of the Stakeholders of the Company; whether such an amalgamation has any bearing internally on Creditors/Members of both the Companies; whether not holding the subject meeting would amount to violation of any of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013; whether the Tribunal can exercise their discretion when the ‘Transferor Company’ is a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the ‘Transferee Company’ and financial position of the ‘Transferee Company’ is positive and the merger is not affecting the rights of the Shareholders or the Creditors.