https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399044 The Court held that the Registrar's action of striking off company names without providing an opportunity to be heard and issuing proper notices was illegal and violated procedural requirements under Section 248 of the Companies Act. Emphasizing the principle of audi alteram partem, the Court allowed the petitioners to appeal under Section 252, stating that time spent on the petitions would not count towards the limitation period. The Court disposed of pending applications, directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for further proceedings. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399044 The Court held that the Registrar's action of striking off company names without providing an opportunity to be heard and issuing proper notices was illegal and violated procedural requirements under Section 248 of the Companies Act. Emphasizing the principle of audi alteram partem, the Court allowed the petitioners to appeal under Section 252, stating that time spent on the petitions would not count towards the limitation period. The Court disposed of pending applications, directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for further proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399044