https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96550 Section 217(4) of the Companies Act, 1913 was construed to mean that the three-month period for dissolution runs from registration of the return, not from mere filing. The Registrar's refusal or failure to register the return could not amount to constructive registration, so automatic dissolution did not occur on that basis. Section 215 was read as preserving the Court's power to intervene throughout voluntary winding up until actual dissolution, and the proper course where registration was wrongly refused was to seek Court intervention. The company was therefore not dissolved, and the suit could not be rejected on that ground. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:22:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96550 Section 217(4) of the Companies Act, 1913 was construed to mean that the three-month period for dissolution runs from registration of the return, not from mere filing. The Registrar's refusal or failure to register the return could not amount to constructive registration, so automatic dissolution did not occur on that basis. Section 215 was read as preserving the Court's power to intervene throughout voluntary winding up until actual dissolution, and the proper course where registration was wrongly refused was to seek Court intervention. The company was therefore not dissolved, and the suit could not be rejected on that ground. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 24 Mar 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96550