Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
A High Court held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 imposes a strict bar on shifting a company's registered office where an appeal against the approved resolution plan is pending, and that Section 238 of the IBC does not override this restriction. The Court read the proviso as creating an independent threshold, found the Regional Director acted beyond jurisdiction in permitting the shift, and set aside the Regional Director's order as well as the Single Judge's order. It also held that the appellants could maintain the writ petition because they were heard in the proceedings, were aggrieved by the impugned order, and had no efficacious alternative remedy.
A High Court held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 imposes a strict bar on shifting a company's registered office where an appeal against the approved resolution plan is pending, and that Section 238 of the IBC does not override this restriction. The Court read the proviso as creating an independent threshold, found the Regional Director acted beyond jurisdiction in permitting the shift, and set aside the Regional Director's order as well as the Single Judge's order. It also held that the appellants could maintain the writ petition because they were heard in the proceedings, were aggrieved by the impugned order, and had no efficacious alternative remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
