Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2021 (5) TMI 51 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        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

        Court upholds Companies Act section constitutionality, dismisses writ petition, imposes Rs. 5 Lakhs cost The court held that Section 272 (1)(e) of the Companies Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India. Additionally, the court found that the order ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Court upholds Companies Act section constitutionality, dismisses writ petition, imposes Rs. 5 Lakhs cost

                          The court held that Section 272 (1)(e) of the Companies Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India. Additionally, the court found that the order dated January 18, 2021, did not require any interference and dismissed the writ petition, imposing a cost of Rs. Five Lakhs on the petitioner payable to the Registrar General of the court within four weeks.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Whether Section 272 (1)(e) of the Companies Act, 2013 is ultra vires the Constitution of India.
                          2. Whether the order dated January 18, 2021, needs any interference.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          Re. Point No.1: Whether Section 272 (1)(e) is ultra vires Constitution of IndiaRs.
                          - Arguments by Petitioner: The petitioner argued that both the Registrar of Companies and a 'person authorized by the Central Government' should be treated equally. The petitioner contended that the Central Government is required to give an opportunity to the company before according sanction to the Registrar, which is not required for a 'person authorized by the Central Government.' The petitioner cited the case of Ram Dial vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 1518) to argue that this lack of opportunity is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

                          - Counterarguments by Respondents: The respondents argued that there is a clear distinction between the Registrar of Companies and a person authorized by the Central Government. The Registrar is a regulator privy to all company information and stands on a different footing. The respondents cited various cases, including Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) vs. Deepak Chowdhary (1995)6 SCC 225 and Manganlal Chhanganlal (P) Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1974)2 SCC 402, to argue that different procedures for different categories of persons are permissible and do not violate constitutional principles.

                          - Court's Analysis: The court found that the Registrar of Companies, being a regulator, falls into a distinct category. The court also noted that the authorities cited by the petitioner do not apply to the facts of this case. The court accepted the respondents' argument that the Registrar and a person authorized by the Central Government fall into different categories and that different procedures can be prescribed for them.

                          - Conclusion: The court held that Section 272 (1)(e) of the Companies Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India.

                          Re. Point No.2: Whether order dated January 18, 2021 needs any interferenceRs.
                          - Arguments by Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the Central Government's decision to accord sanction was malafide. The petitioner contended that the sanction was given in a hurried manner to avoid payment under an arbitration award and that the allegations of fraud were designed to deprive Devas of its legitimate dues.

                          - Counterarguments by Respondents: The respondents argued that Devas had committed fraud in collusion with officials of Antrix Corporation, resulting in a significant financial loss to the Government of India. The respondents provided detailed allegations of siphoning off money and other illegal activities by Devas. The respondents also argued that the sanction was an administrative act and did not require an opportunity for hearing at that stage.

                          - Court's Analysis: The court found that the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands, as there were serious allegations of siphoning money and other illegalities against Devas. The court noted that the petitioner had already challenged the NCLT's order before the NCLAT and had filed an application for impleadment in the main petition. The court also found that the sanction order did not have any civil consequences for the petitioner, who was a minor shareholder in Devas.

                          - Conclusion: The court held that the order dated January 18, 2021, did not need any interference and dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. Five Lakhs payable to the Registrar General of the court.

                          Final Judgment:
                          The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 272 (1)(e) of the Companies Act is not ultra vires the Constitution of India and that the order dated January 18, 2021, did not require any interference. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. Five Lakhs to the Registrar General of the court within four weeks.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found