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...
The court held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) had the power to strike off the name of a company from the Register u/s 560(1)(6) of the old Companies Act, 1956, which is pari materia with Section 248 of the new Companies Act, 2013. The provisions under the old and new Acts are consistent, with the new Act providing a more detailed procedure for striking off and an effective remedy for dealing with deregistration of non-operational companies. The registers maintained under the old Act are deemed to be maintained under the new Act. The petitioner's remedy lies with the National Company Law Tribunal under Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the application was dismissed.
The court held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) had the power to strike off the name of a company from the Register u/s 560(1)(6) of the old Companies Act, 1956, which is pari materia with Section 248 of the new Companies Act, 2013. The provisions under the old and new Acts are consistent, with the new Act providing a more detailed procedure for striking off and an effective remedy for dealing with deregistration of non-operational companies. The registers maintained under the old Act are deemed to be maintained under the new Act. The petitioner's remedy lies with the National Company Law Tribunal under Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the application was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
