Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order under section 294 of the Companies Act, 1929 declaring a company's dissolution to have been void operates retrospectively so as to revive the company from the date of dissolution and prevent property from vesting in the Crown under section 296.
Analysis: Section 294 authorises the court to declare the dissolution to have been void, and the language was treated as conferring an effective power, not a merely formal declaration. The distinction between revival after dissolution and restoration after striking off under section 295(6) was noted, but the wording of section 294 was held to mean that the dissolution is avoided from the date it originally occurred. On that footing, property that would otherwise fall within section 296 as bona vacantia is taken out of the Crown's hands by the court's order, because section 296 itself yields to any order made under the preceding restorative provisions.
Conclusion: The order under section 294 was granted, the dissolution was treated as void ab initio, and any vesting of the company's property in the Crown was held to be avoided.
Ratio Decidendi: An order declaring a company's dissolution to have been void under section 294 of the Companies Act, 1929 has retrospective effect from the date of dissolution and displaces the statutory vesting of the company's property as bona vacantia under section 296.