Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing M.A. Panjwani vs Registrar Of Companies & Anr. on 2 December, 2013

Registrar Of Companies West Bengal vs Goouksheer Farm Fresh Pvt Ltd & Anr on 19 November, 2020

23. It is to be pointed out that there are two circumstances in which the Tribunal can exercise power to restore the name of the Company (i) when it is 9 Company Appeal (AT) No. 127 of 2020 satisfied that the Company was at the time of striking off its name from the register, carrying on business or was in operation. (ii) When it appears to the Tribunal that it is 'otherwise just' that the name of the Company be restored as per decision 'M.A. Panjwani' V. 'Registrar of Companies and Ors.' reported in (2015) 124 CLA 109(Delhi).
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Leka Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Companies Odisha on 8 February, 2024

29. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision in M.A. Panjwani's case, wherein at paragraph 15 it was held that the presence of the words "or otherwise" denotes that even if the Company was not carrying on any 'Business' or was not in operation at the time of 'striking off', it is still open to the 'Company COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO. 227 OF 2023 13 Court' to order restoration if it appears to be Court to be "otherwise just".
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Akl Enterprise Private Limited vs The Registrar Of Companies Odisha on 8 February, 2024

21. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision in M.A. Panjwani's case, wherein at paragraph 15 it was held that the presence of the words "or otherwise" denotes that even if the Company was not carrying on any business or was not in operation at the time of striking off, it is still open to the Company Court to order restoration if it appears to be Court to be "otherwise just".
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ad4U Communications Pvt Ltd vs M/S Ikoncept India Pvt Ltd And Ors on 13 September, 2023

6. The argument of learned counsel for defendants is resisted by learned counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the application is not accompanied with the detailed order passed by Learned Registrar of Companies. The defendants have not disclosed if pendency of the present suit and other case was brought to the notice of Learned Registrar of Companies and also whether all documents pertaining to liability of defendant company were placed before the Learned Registrar of Companies. Under these circumstances, it is apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendants have submitted forged and false documents before the Learned Registrar of Companies. It is further contented that under Section 248 (6) & (7) of The Companies Act, the assets of defendant no.1 company and its directors were liable to discharge the liability of defendant company. Learned counsel for plaintiff also placed reliance upon judgment titled as MA PANJWANI vs REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES reported as 2013, SCC Online Delhi 4863.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S D. D. Pradhan & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Real Tech Projects Pvt. Ltd on 31 October, 2018

5. During arguments on the application, both sides took me through their respective stand narrated above. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of  M A Punjwani vs Registrar of Companies, 2013   SCC   Online   Del   4863   and   judgment   of   Hon'ble   Madhya Bharat High Court in the case of Bhogilal Chimanlal vs Registrar, Joint   Stock   Companies,  1953   SCC   Online   MP   154.   Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that neither of the judgments referred to by counsel for applicant has applicability to the present case and that the defendant company has been playing fraud with creditors.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1