Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Winding-up petition dismissed due to lack of grounds and failure to establish fraud allegations</h1> <h3>Vinod Krishan Khanna and others Versus M/s Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Corporation (P) Limited and others</h3> The court dismissed the winding-up petition under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, as the petitioners failed to establish grounds for winding up ... Winding up petition - Circumstances in which company may be wound up by Court - “Just and equitable” principle - Held that:- No case is made out for winding up the respondent-company. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to prove on the basis of the material and the evidence on record that it is just and equitable to make out an order for winding up the respondent-company. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Winding Up Petition: Whether it is just and equitable to wind up the respondent-company under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Constitution and Incorporation: Legality and regularity of the incorporation of the respondent-company.3. Just and Equitable Clause: Interpretation and application of the 'just and equitable' clause in Section 433(f) of the Act.4. Alternative Remedies: Availability and appropriateness of alternative remedies.5. Jurisdiction of Company Court: Scope and limitations of the Company Court's jurisdiction in summary proceedings.6. Conclusive Evidence: Effect of the certificate of incorporation as conclusive evidence under Section 35 of the Act.7. Fraud Allegations: Examination of allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the incorporation process.Detailed Analysis:1. Winding Up Petition:The petitioners sought the winding up of the respondent-company under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that it was just and equitable to do so. The core issue was whether it was appropriate to wind up the respondent-company on this ground. The court noted that the phrase 'just and equitable' has a wide scope and must be considered in light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that winding up is a remedy of last resort and should not be used if other remedies are available.2. Constitution and Incorporation:The petitioners alleged that the respondent-company was fraudulently and illegally incorporated against the provisions of the Act. They pointed to several alleged irregularities, including unauthorized use of General Power of Attorneys (GPAs), fraudulent changes in the partnership resolution, and procedural lapses in the incorporation process. The respondents countered that the company was properly incorporated under Part IX of the Act, and that the certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies was conclusive evidence of compliance with all statutory requirements.3. Just and Equitable Clause:The court examined the 'just and equitable' clause under Section 433(f) of the Act. It emphasized that this clause should not be used to wind up a company on mere allegations. The court referred to various judicial pronouncements, highlighting that the interests of the shareholders, creditors, employees, and the public at large must be considered. The court also noted that the petitioners had not disclosed all material facts and had acted unreasonably in seeking winding up instead of pursuing other remedies.4. Alternative Remedies:The court noted that under Section 443(2) of the Act, it could refuse to make a winding-up order if some other remedy was available to the petitioners and they were acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up. The court observed that the petitioners had alternative remedies available, such as filing an application under Section 397 of the Act for relief against oppression and mismanagement.5. Jurisdiction of Company Court:The court reiterated that the Company Court has summary jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate on highly disputed or complicated questions of fact. It emphasized that the court should not embark on an inquiry into the genuineness of documents or the validity of GPAs in a winding-up petition. The court referred to various judgments to support its view that disputed questions of fact fall outside the domain of the Company Court under Section 433 of the Act.6. Conclusive Evidence:The court emphasized that under Section 35 of the Act, the certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies is conclusive evidence that all requirements of the Act have been complied with. The court cited several judgments to support the view that the certificate of incorporation cannot be challenged on the grounds of irregularities or procedural lapses once it has been issued.7. Fraud Allegations:The petitioners alleged that the incorporation of the respondent-company was based on fraud and misrepresentation. They claimed that the GPAs used for incorporation did not authorize the formation of a company and had been revoked. The court noted that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved. It found that the petitioners had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their allegations of fraud. The court also observed that the petitioners had not acted with candor and had failed to disclose all material facts, which undermined their case.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for winding up the respondent-company under Section 433(f) of the Act. It held that the petitioners had alternative remedies available and had acted unreasonably in seeking winding up. The court emphasized the conclusive nature of the certificate of incorporation and the limitations of the Company Court's jurisdiction in summary proceedings. Consequently, the petition for winding up was dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found