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 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This case pertains to a prayer for rectification in the Register of Members concerning the transfer of shares, invoking Section 154 of the NCLT Rules. The key points are: The appeal against the relief granted by NCLT in the Principal Company Petitions was sustainable only when the Company (Appellant No.1) was contesting the matter as a legal entity. However, upon withdrawal by the Company, Appellant No. 2 (an individual) had no cause of action flowing from Appellant No.1. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice to Appellant No. 2's rights u/s 59 of the Companies Act. The relief sought for re-entering names and share configuration in the Register of Members could not be pressed by Appellant No. 2 in the absence of an effective contest by Appellant No. 1 (the Company). Appellant No. 2 is free to resort to appropriate proceedings u/s 59(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, which will be decided per the law.
This case pertains to a prayer for rectification in the Register of Members concerning the transfer of shares, invoking Section 154 of the NCLT Rules. The key points are: The appeal against the relief granted by NCLT in the Principal Company Petitions was sustainable only when the Company (Appellant No.1) was contesting the matter as a legal entity. However, upon withdrawal by the Company, Appellant No. 2 (an individual) had no cause of action flowing from Appellant No.1. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice to Appellant No. 2's rights u/s 59 of the Companies Act. The relief sought for re-entering names and share configuration in the Register of Members could not be pressed by Appellant No. 2 in the absence of an effective contest by Appellant No. 1 (the Company). Appellant No. 2 is free to resort to appropriate proceedings u/s 59(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, which will be decided per the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
