Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Registrar of Companies And Others

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

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 and be awarded to the Registrar of Companies.

.....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was enga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtment, 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 entered in the agreement with them for sale of the propert .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

titioner 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 company i.e. respondent No. 2 and has thus, filed this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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