https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293906 The court ruled in favor of the writ petitioners, quashing the demands for permission fees and processing fees for the company's name change. The court held that the change of name did not affect the company's rights as a sub-lessee and did not require a new sub-lease deed. It emphasized that the change of name under the Companies Act, 1956 did not create a new entity or warrant additional fees. The demands were deemed illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law, and the respondents were directed to process the name change without imposing any extra charges. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 19:21:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293906 The court ruled in favor of the writ petitioners, quashing the demands for permission fees and processing fees for the company's name change. The court held that the change of name did not affect the company's rights as a sub-lessee and did not require a new sub-lease deed. It emphasized that the change of name under the Companies Act, 1956 did not create a new entity or warrant additional fees. The demands were deemed illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law, and the respondents were directed to process the name change without imposing any extra charges. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293906