Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Body-worn camera recordings for Customs baggage checks: new SOP mandates full passenger-interaction capture, secure storage, privacy safeguards, stric...
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 of the Ld. NCLT, directing the ROC to restore the name of Respondent No.1 company to the Register of Companies. The Appellate Tribunal held that restoration is just, equitable, and in public interest, as the company must remain in existence to execute sale deeds in favour of allottees of residential and commercial units, subject to a favourable outcome in pending High Court proceedings. NCLAT observed that the existence of only one director does not impede restoration and left it to shareholders to appoint an additional director, failing which the ROC may take appropriate steps. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 of the Ld. NCLT, directing the ROC to restore the name of Respondent No.1 company to the Register of Companies. The Appellate Tribunal held that restoration is just, equitable, and in public interest, as the company must remain in existence to execute sale deeds in favour of allottees of residential and commercial units, subject to a favourable outcome in pending High Court proceedings. NCLAT observed that the existence of only one director does not impede restoration and left it to shareholders to appoint an additional director, failing which the ROC may take appropriate steps. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
