TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the earlier order restoring the name of the wrong company required modification and whether the intended company was entitled to restoration of its name in the register of companies.
Analysis: The appeal arose from an application dismissed by the Tribunal on the view that the main petition did not contain a specific prayer for restoration of the intended company and that the later request was an attempt to take advantage of an inadvertent error in the restoration order. The record showed that the petition was filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 with a creditor-based request for revival, that the Registrar of Companies had given no objection to restoration, and that the Tribunal's earlier order had mistakenly restored the name of the appellant company instead of the company whose restoration was sought. In these circumstances, the wrong mention in the operative order was treated as a clerical or inadvertent mistake capable of correction, and the substantive relief sought in the proceedings was held to justify restoration of the intended company.
Conclusion: The modification was warranted, and the order was to be corrected so that the intended company, Sun Clearing and Forwarding Services Private Limited, stood restored to the register of companies.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the dismissal of the modification application was set aside, resulting in restoration of the correct company name in place of the mistaken restoration recorded earlier.
Ratio Decidendi: An order restoring the name of a company may be modified to correct an inadvertent misdescription where the proceedings and materials clearly show that restoration of a different company was intended and no prejudice is caused to the statutory scheme or creditors' interests.
TaxTMI 
