https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460582 NCLAT set aside NCLT order allowing company name restoration under Section 252(1) of Companies Act, 2013. The impugned order failed to mention the date of striking off the company name, making it impossible to determine if the petition was filed within the mandatory three-year period. NCLT imposed Rs. 5 lakh cost without providing plausible reasons. The order lacked adequate examination of statutory requirements under Section 252(1). Matter remitted to NCLT for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to both appellant and ROC. Appeal allowed by way of remand. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Feb 2025 18:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460582 NCLAT set aside NCLT order allowing company name restoration under Section 252(1) of Companies Act, 2013. The impugned order failed to mention the date of striking off the company name, making it impossible to determine if the petition was filed within the mandatory three-year period. NCLT imposed Rs. 5 lakh cost without providing plausible reasons. The order lacked adequate examination of statutory requirements under Section 252(1). Matter remitted to NCLT for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to both appellant and ROC. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460582