https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102217 Where a statute provides for takeover of an industrial undertaking owned by a company, the undertaking is not automatically treated as the company itself unless the legislation clearly so states. The provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Nationalisation Act, 1984 distinguished between the undertaking and the company, showing that only the undertaking and related liabilities were transferred while the company continued as a separate legal entity. On that basis, the company's management was not taken over as a whole, and an officer appointed for the undertaking could not represent the company in litigation. Nikus Kumar Sarkar was therefore not competent to execute the vakalatnama or verify the written statement on behalf of the company. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:12:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102217 Where a statute provides for takeover of an industrial undertaking owned by a company, the undertaking is not automatically treated as the company itself unless the legislation clearly so states. The provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Nationalisation Act, 1984 distinguished between the undertaking and the company, showing that only the undertaking and related liabilities were transferred while the company continued as a separate legal entity. On that basis, the company's management was not taken over as a whole, and an officer appointed for the undertaking could not represent the company in litigation. Nikus Kumar Sarkar was therefore not competent to execute the vakalatnama or verify the written statement on behalf of the company. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 29 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102217