TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the first two company appeals was liable to be condoned and the impugned restrictions and penalty under the company law provisions were sustainable. (ii) Whether the restoration application filed in the name of the company was not maintainable merely because it had been moved by a debarred individual. (iii) Whether the company, as a juristic person, retained the right to seek restoration through an authorised representative.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the first two company appeals was liable to be condoned and the impugned restrictions and penalty under the company law provisions were sustainable.
Analysis: The delay was condoned on a pragmatic view, with the prior resort to writ proceedings treated as sufficient basis for exclusion and condonation. On merits, the record was held to show that the appellants had no credible authority to function as company administrator or representative, and their conduct was found to be fraudulent and aimed at usurping the company's affairs. The restrictions imposed by the tribunal, along with the fine, were therefore found justified.
Conclusion: The delay stood condoned, but the challenge to the impugned order failed and the first two appeals were dismissed.
Issue (ii): Whether the restoration application filed in the name of the company was not maintainable merely because it had been moved by a debarred individual.
Analysis: The company's separate legal personality was recognised. It was held that the inability of one individual to act for the company could not extinguish the company's own right to seek restoration of its petition. A restoration request could not be rejected solely on the ground that it was presented by a person who had been restrained from acting for the company.
Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected and the order dismissing the restoration application was set aside.
Issue (iii): Whether the company, as a juristic person, retained the right to seek restoration through an authorised representative.
Analysis: The company's right to litigate and obtain adjudicatory access was treated as inherent in its legal personality. The appropriate course was to permit an authorised person, other than the restrained individuals, to move a fresh restoration application for consideration on merits in accordance with law and limitation.
Conclusion: The company was held entitled to pursue restoration through an authorised representative.
Final Conclusion: The first two appeals were rejected on merits, while the third appeal succeeded and the matter concerning restoration was reopened for consideration by an authorised person other than the restrained individuals.
Ratio Decidendi: A company, as a juristic person, cannot be denied access to restoration or other legal remedies merely because one particular individual associated with it is barred from acting on its behalf; the company's remedy may be pursued through a duly authorised representative.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
