Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  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
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Court dismisses application to restore defunct company; assets vested in Union of India

        Rai Saheb UN. Mandal´s Estate Ltd., In re

        Rai Saheb UN. Mandal´s Estate Ltd., In re - [1960] 30 COMP. CAS. 172 (CAL.) Issues Involved:
        1. Locus Standi of the Applicant
        2. Restoration or Winding Up of the Company
        3. Company's Ownership of Properties
        4. Pending Proceedings and Book Debts
        5. Justification for Striking Off by the Registrar
        6. Court's Discretion in Restoring the Company
        7. Bona Vacantia and Assets of Dissolved Companies

        Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Locus Standi of the Applicant:
        The court determined that Biswanath Mandal had no locus standi as he was neither a registered shareholder, member, nor director of the company, Rai Saheb U.N. Mandal's Estate Private Ltd. Consequently, his application was dismissed with costs.

        2. Restoration or Winding Up of the Company:
        The applicant, Nagendra Nath Mandal, sought either the restoration of the company or its winding up by the court. The court analyzed the company's history and found that it had never functioned properly, held no meetings, and had no banking accounts. The company had been struck off the register by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court concluded that the facts did not support the arguments for restoration or winding up, as the company had not carried on any business or been in operation for a significant period.

        3. Company's Ownership of Properties:
        The court examined the company's ownership of properties and found that although certain properties were transferred to the company, it never took possession of them. The original owners continued to possess and enjoy these properties individually. The court noted that the company was merely a name, and the properties were treated as personal assets by the family members. The court concluded that the company did not act as the owner of any property.

        4. Pending Proceedings and Book Debts:
        The court found no evidence of any pending proceedings or book debts that justified the restoration of the company. The alleged pending proceedings, such as certificate proceedings and land revenue settlement proceedings, were either not against the company or were insignificant. The court also noted that the company kept no books of account to show any book debts.

        5. Justification for Striking Off by the Registrar:
        The court held that the Registrar was justified in striking off the company from the register under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company had failed to carry on any business or be in operation, and no cause to the contrary was shown by the applicant or anyone else. The Registrar had followed the proper procedure and provided ample opportunity for objections.

        6. Court's Discretion in Restoring the Company:
        The court emphasized that the power to restore a company under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, is discretionary. The court must be satisfied that the company was carrying on business or in operation at the time it was struck off or that it is just to restore the company. The court found that the company had not carried on any business and that restoring it would be futile due to the ongoing disputes among family members. Therefore, the court declined to restore the company.

        7. Bona Vacantia and Assets of Dissolved Companies:
        The court discussed the doctrine of bona vacantia, which applies to the assets of a dissolved company. In the absence of specific statutory provisions in the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the court opined that the assets of a dissolved company would vest in the Union of India under Article 296 of the Constitution of India. However, the court found no evidence of any assets or properties belonging to the defunct company in this case.

        Conclusion:
        The application was dismissed with costs, as the court found no grounds to restore the company or wind it up. The court concluded that the company was defunct, had not carried on any business, and had no assets or pending proceedings that justified its restoration. The Registrar's decision to strike off the company was upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found