Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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 βœ•
  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
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 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
  • 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
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 statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

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

        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

        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.

        <h1>Tribunal Orders Winding Up of Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. for Fraudulent Activities</h1> The Tribunal ordered the winding up of Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. due to fraudulent intentions from its incorporation and ongoing fraudulent activities. ... Winding up of liquidation process - sanction by Central Government to file the instant Petition - fraudulent and unlawful purpose - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position of law that misdeeds and illegal acts committed by such Officials of Antrix would not bind the State and those actions have become-initio void and would not result in any legal/civil consequences. It is an absurd contention rose on behalf of Devas, that after obtaining the contract in question in the above manner, it started to obtain necessary licenses to fulfil its obligations under the terms of Contract. Devas did not stop its fraudulent activities even after termination of the Contract in question. By taking advantage, rather misusing the terms of Article 20 (Arbitration Clause) as contained in the Agreement, to pre-empt Antrix to settle the dispute first by referring to senior Management of both the parties, failing which to invoke arbitration clause, has hurriedly rushed to ICC Court on 01st July, 2011 by-passing due procedure as contemplated under the Agreement. Even the idea to incorporate Devas was with fraudulent intentions coupled with malafide objects to enter into Agreement with Antrix with no responsibility at all. It is unknown to law that such a prestigious agreement with Govt. Owned Company was got signed by a clerk, paying remuneration for the same. Therefore, the Agreement in question would become void ab initio and it would not create any legal rights, much civil rights to Devas. Thus the incorporation of Devas made with fraudulent intentions is ab initio void and its name should be struck from the Register of Registrar of Companies by virtue of this winding up proceedings. Though the validity of Agreement in question is not the subject matter in the instant case, the fraudulent and unlawful purpose behind incorporation of Devas, would be relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal, while deciding the case - thus, the circumstances as mentioned under provisions of Section 271 of Companies Act, 2013 stand fulfilled so as to order Winding Up of R-1 Devas Company. The Petitioner has established its case beyond doubt that the incorporation of DEVAS/R-1 Company was made in a fraudulent manner and for unlawful purposes. Its management is continuing to resort to fraudulent activities - Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Sanction by the Central Government for filing the petition.2. Fraudulent conduct of Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. and its management.3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the fraudulent nature of the agreement.4. Limitation period for filing the petition.5. Requirement of advertisement before passing the final winding-up order.6. The impact of the ongoing criminal investigations and other proceedings on the winding-up petition.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Sanction by the Central Government for Filing the Petition:The Tribunal noted that the sanction for filing the winding-up petition was accorded by the Central Government through a notification dated 18.01.2021. This sanction was challenged by Devas on the grounds that no prior opportunity was given to them before granting the sanction. However, the Tribunal observed that as per Section 272 of the Companies Act, 2013, there is no requirement to give prior notice to the company to be wound up, unlike in the case of the Registrar who files a winding-up petition. The Karnataka High Court had also dismissed a related writ petition filed by Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd., thereby upholding the validity of the sanction.2. Fraudulent Conduct of Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. and Its Management:The Tribunal found that the incorporation of Devas itself was with fraudulent intentions to secure a prestigious contract from Antrix Corporation Ltd. in collusion with the then officials of Antrix. Devas was incorporated on 17.12.2004 and secured the contract on 28.01.2005, within 45 days of its incorporation. The Tribunal highlighted that Devas did not possess the requisite experience or infrastructure to qualify for such a contract. The fraudulent activities continued even after the termination of the contract, as Devas hurriedly invoked arbitration, bypassing due procedure. The Tribunal concluded that the incorporation of Devas was ab initio void, and its name should be struck from the Register of Companies.3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Determine the Fraudulent Nature of the Agreement:Devas contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the fraudulent nature of the agreement, as these issues were being examined by the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, and the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that it alone is competent to decide the issue of winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal emphasized that fraud proven in criminal cases may lead to sentencing but would not result in the winding up of a company, which falls under its exclusive jurisdiction.4. Limitation Period for Filing the Petition:Devas argued that the petition was barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 2016 when the CBI and ED unearthed the alleged fraud. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the cause of action in cases of fraud is continuous. It noted that the fraudulent activities of Devas were ongoing and that the question of limitation does not arise in the instant case.5. Requirement of Advertisement Before Passing the Final Winding-up Order:Devas contended that the petition should be advertised before passing the final winding-up order. The Tribunal observed that advertisement of the petition depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the Tribunal had already provided adequate opportunity to Devas by making the petition and its annexures available and listing the case on the NCLT website. The Tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice had been duly followed and that the advertisement was not mandatory.6. The Impact of the Ongoing Criminal Investigations and Other Proceedings on the Winding-up Petition:Devas argued that the Tribunal should wait for the outcome of the ongoing criminal investigations and other proceedings before deciding the winding-up petition. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that it has exclusive jurisdiction over winding-up petitions under the Companies Act, 2013. It emphasized that the criminal proceedings would not lead to the winding up of Devas and that the Tribunal must decide the issue independently.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated with fraudulent intentions and continued to engage in fraudulent activities. It ordered the winding up of Devas and appointed the Official Liquidator attached to the High Court of Karnataka as the Liquidator. The Tribunal directed the Liquidator to take expeditious steps to liquidate the company and prevent it from perpetuating its fraudulent activities. The Tribunal also dismissed the connected applications as infructuous.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found