Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
