https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791833 The second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 was construed as an independent embargo on shifting a company's registered office where management had been taken over under an approved resolution plan and appeals against that plan were still pending. The Regional Director could not rely on section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to bypass the statutory restriction, because permission under section 13(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 had to comply strictly with the Companies Act and Rules. The court also treated noticees who had objected before the Regional Director as aggrieved parties with locus to invoke Article 226. en-us Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791833 The second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 was construed as an independent embargo on shifting a company's registered office where management had been taken over under an approved resolution plan and appeals against that plan were still pending. The Regional Director could not rely on section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to bypass the statutory restriction, because permission under section 13(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 had to comply strictly with the Companies Act and Rules. The court also treated noticees who had objected before the Regional Director as aggrieved parties with locus to invoke Article 226. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791833