GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 552 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (3) TMI 552 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Restoration of the name of the company struck off - Held that:- Respondent No. 1 had already filed its reply in which it is averred in paragraph No. 11 that it has no objection if the name of respondent No. 2 Company is restored to the Register of Registrar of Companies. However, it has referred to Rule 94 of the Companies(Court) Rule 1959 to contend that necessary orders may be passed by this Court by imposing some cost upon the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent No. 2 is ordered to be registered in the Register of Registrar of Companies. - CP No. 131 of 2012 - Dated:- 11-3-2016 - Rakesh Kumar Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate ORDER Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This petition is filed by the Income Tax department under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, (for short, 'the Act 1956') for restoration of the name of the Company(respondent No. 2) to the Register of the Registrar of Companies(respondent No. 1). The case set .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,268/-. The Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department, Ludhiana started the recovery proceedings under Section 222 of the Act, 1961 and under the provisions of Second Schedule of the Act, 1961. It is also alleged that there are three appeals pending in this Court bearing RSA No. 4574 of 2011, RSA No. 4578 of 2011 and RSA No. 4579 of 2011 filed on 23.09.2011 by the Tax Recovery Officer-I, Ludhiana. These appeals have arisen from the suits filed by the vendees from respondent No. 2 who ent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(5) of the Act, 1956. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not receive any notice of striking off the name of respondent No. 2 from the Register of Registrar of the Companies under Section 560(3) of the Act, 1956 because all the letters issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 were delivered back with remarks of incomplete address . The petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner falls within the definition of Creditors under Section 560(6) of the Act, 1956 of the defaulter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version