https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217652 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge. The court found the appeal maintainable as it involved the finality of the respondent's locus standi, making it a "judgment" under the Letters Patent. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the court highlighted the Registrar's responsibility to rectify procedural lapses before striking off a company's name. The respondent's status remained in dispute, requiring resolution in an appropriate forum. The court concluded that the Company Judge's power is limited to administrative scrutiny, setting aside the order restoring the company's name and emphasizing the need for the respondent to establish his status before invoking Section 560. en-us Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217652 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge. The court found the appeal maintainable as it involved the finality of the respondent's locus standi, making it a "judgment" under the Letters Patent. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the court highlighted the Registrar's responsibility to rectify procedural lapses before striking off a company's name. The respondent's status remained in dispute, requiring resolution in an appropriate forum. The court concluded that the Company Judge's power is limited to administrative scrutiny, setting aside the order restoring the company's name and emphasizing the need for the respondent to establish his status before invoking Section 560. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217652