1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Restoration of Company Name under Companies Act Section 247(6)</h1> The court ordered the restoration of the company's name to the register under S. 247(6) of the Companies Act. The petitioner's claim for restoration was ... - Issues:Petition under S. 247(6), Companies Act to restore the name of a company to the register of Companies.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition under S. 247(6) of the Companies Act seeking the restoration of the name of Shalini Mills Ltd. Alote to the register of Companies. The petitioner, acting as an agent for the company, claimed an outstanding amount for the purchase of machinery. A suit for recovery of this sum was filed in the Bombay High Court in 1948 and was still pending. The Registrar of Companies published a notice in 1951 stating that the name of the company would be struck off the register unless cause was shown to the contrary. As no response was received, the name was struck off the register. The petitioner learned about this removal when informed by an opponent. The petitioner sought restoration based on these facts.In response, the opponent contended that he was unaware of the publication of the notification and therefore did not show cause for not removing the name from the register. However, he admitted informing the petitioner's attorneys about the removal. No other opponent contested the petition. The court noted that at the time of the Registrar's notice, the suit filed by the petitioner in the Bombay High Court was pending and being contested on behalf of the Mills. The court referred to a previous judgment and held that when a suit is pending against a company and being contested at the time of name removal, restoration is proper, especially when the Directors were aware of the litigation. In this case, the Directors were not ignorant of the removal as one of them informed the petitioner's attorneys about it. Consequently, the court directed the restoration of the company's name to the register.The court ordered the restoration of the company's name and awarded costs to the petitioner from the opponents. The pleader's fee was set at &8377;10.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
