<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (10) TMI 523 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113955</link>
    <description>A struck-off company&#039;s name was restored to the register under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 92 to 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 because the material showed prior incorporation, a subsequent name change, commercial activity, assets and liabilities reflected in audited accounts, and business financing. Regular filing of income-tax returns and the absence of prior notice before striking off also supported restoration. With no opposition from the Registrar and the statutory requirements treated as satisfied, the company was ordered restored as if it had never been struck off.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 523 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113955</link>
      <description>A struck-off company&#039;s name was restored to the register under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 92 to 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 because the material showed prior incorporation, a subsequent name change, commercial activity, assets and liabilities reflected in audited accounts, and business financing. Regular filing of income-tax returns and the absence of prior notice before striking off also supported restoration. With no opposition from the Registrar and the statutory requirements treated as satisfied, the company was ordered restored as if it had never been struck off.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>