Transfer fee demand on leasehold land transfer by statutory corporation challenged; petition dismissed for fact suppression and inapplicable IBC Secti...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
