https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467714 An order restoring a company's name may be corrected where the operative part mistakenly names the wrong entity but the record clearly shows that restoration of the intended company was sought under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal treated the wrong mention as an inadvertent clerical misdescription because the petition was creditor-based, the Registrar of Companies raised no objection, and the surrounding materials identified the company intended for revival. The modification was therefore warranted, and restoration was directed in favour of the intended company in place of the mistakenly named entity. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:19:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467714 An order restoring a company's name may be corrected where the operative part mistakenly names the wrong entity but the record clearly shows that restoration of the intended company was sought under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal treated the wrong mention as an inadvertent clerical misdescription because the petition was creditor-based, the Registrar of Companies raised no objection, and the surrounding materials identified the company intended for revival. The modification was therefore warranted, and restoration was directed in favour of the intended company in place of the mistakenly named entity. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467714