Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 permits the Central Government to direct rectification of a newly registered company's name where it is identical with or too nearly resembles a previously registered company's name. Information supplied by an aggrieved existing company may support the Government's formation of that opinion without converting the matter into proceedings under Section 16(1)(b). The note records that similar names used by companies operating in the same DNA-testing field justified the rectification direction. It further records that the High Court treated the direction as valid and within jurisdiction, and dismissed the challenge.
Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 permits the Central Government to direct rectification of a newly registered company's name where it is identical with or too nearly resembles a previously registered company's name. Information supplied by an aggrieved existing company may support the Government's formation of that opinion without converting the matter into proceedings under Section 16(1)(b). The note records that similar names used by companies operating in the same DNA-testing field justified the rectification direction. It further records that the High Court treated the direction as valid and within jurisdiction, and dismissed the challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.