Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The NCLAT held that the limitation period under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing up to twenty years for a company, member, creditor, or workman to apply for restoration of a company's name struck off the Register of Companies, applies when a member files the appeal. The appellant company, owning substantial property valued at Rs. 6 crores, demonstrated that non-restoration would cause irreparable loss and contradict public policy. The Tribunal found the NCLT's application of a shorter limitation period incorrect and deemed it just and equitable to restore the company's name. Consequently, the impugned NCLT order was set aside, and the ROC was directed to restore the company's name upon fulfillment of requisite compliances. The appeal was allowed.
The NCLAT held that the limitation period under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing up to twenty years for a company, member, creditor, or workman to apply for restoration of a company's name struck off the Register of Companies, applies when a member files the appeal. The appellant company, owning substantial property valued at Rs. 6 crores, demonstrated that non-restoration would cause irreparable loss and contradict public policy. The Tribunal found the NCLT's application of a shorter limitation period incorrect and deemed it just and equitable to restore the company's name. Consequently, the impugned NCLT order was set aside, and the ROC was directed to restore the company's name upon fulfillment of requisite compliances. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
