https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305552 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner company, holding that demanding a transfer fee for recording a change of corporate name was not justified as it did not constitute a transfer of leasehold rights. The Court also directed the authorities to grant the petitioner company a license for storage and use of Hexane under the 2000 Order, stating that withholding the license due to non-recognition of the company as a lessee was improper. The impugned demand for transfer fee was quashed, and the District Magistrate's refusal of the license was overturned, with instructions to process the name change and grant the license promptly. en-us Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Dec 2022 19:54:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305552 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner company, holding that demanding a transfer fee for recording a change of corporate name was not justified as it did not constitute a transfer of leasehold rights. The Court also directed the authorities to grant the petitioner company a license for storage and use of Hexane under the 2000 Order, stating that withholding the license due to non-recognition of the company as a lessee was improper. The impugned demand for transfer fee was quashed, and the District Magistrate's refusal of the license was overturned, with instructions to process the name change and grant the license promptly. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305552