TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Application seeking appeal restoration dismissed due to lack of authority to represent company in legal proceedings</h1> <h3>CHANDRA TOBACCO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</h3> The Bench dismissed the application seeking restoration of an appeal, as the applicant, though claiming to be a Director, lacked the authority to ... Appeal - Locus standi - Maintainability Issues: Locus standi of the applicant to file appeal; Authority of the Director to represent the company in legal proceedingsIn this case, an application was filed seeking restoration of an appeal which was dismissed by the Bench. The applicant's Counsel requested adjournments multiple times, citing the need to present certain documents. However, no new documents were submitted, and the Counsel sought further adjournment for a different reason without specifying the purpose for the previous adjournment. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) opposed further adjournment, arguing that the application should be dismissed. The Bench examined the past record and decided not to allow further adjournment due to the lack of new documents and unclear reasons presented by the Counsel.The application was for reconsidering the locus standi of the applicant to file the appeal. The applicant claimed to be the Director and 'Principal Officer' of the company, authorized to represent them in legal matters. However, the resolution passed by the Board of Directors appointing the applicant as an Additional Director did not specifically authorize him to represent the company in legal proceedings. According to the Companies Act, an Additional Director holds office only until the next Annual General Meeting, and there was no evidence of the applicant being re-inducted after the initial appointment. Therefore, the Bench concluded that the applicant lacked locus standi to represent the company in legal proceedings, as detailed in the earlier order. The application was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant did not have the authority to represent the company.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
