https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108984 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Regional Director's order, stating that no directions could be issued after the statutory period under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, had expired. The court acknowledged the exclusion of the period covered by court injunctions but emphasized it could not extend or enlarge the statutory limitation period. Despite excluding the injunction period, the extended period had lapsed before the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the petition without addressing the main controversy. en-us Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:32:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108984 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Regional Director's order, stating that no directions could be issued after the statutory period under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, had expired. The court acknowledged the exclusion of the period covered by court injunctions but emphasized it could not extend or enlarge the statutory limitation period. Despite excluding the injunction period, the extended period had lapsed before the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the petition without addressing the main controversy. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108984