Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (4.60 seconds)The Companies Act, 2013
Lilavati Bai vs The State Of Bombay on 5 March, 1957
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
the Court to be "otherwise just". I may add that the words "or
otherwise" have not been generally construed ejusdem generis as
seen from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lilawati Bai Vs
State of Bombay : (AIR 1957 SC 521) and Kavallappara
Kottarathil Kochuni V. State of Madras : (AIR 1960 SC 1080).
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni And ... vs The State Of Madras And Others on 4 May, 1960
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
the Court to be "otherwise just". I may add that the words "or
otherwise" have not been generally construed ejusdem generis as
seen from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lilawati Bai Vs
State of Bombay : (AIR 1957 SC 521) and Kavallappara
Kottarathil Kochuni V. State of Madras : (AIR 1960 SC 1080).
Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998
In Helen C Rebella Vs Maharashtra S.R.T.C. : (1999) 1 SCC
90, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the word "just"
M.A. Rahim And Anr. vs Sayari Bai on 10 April, 1972
In M.A. Rahim and Anr
Vs Sayari Bai : (AIR 1973 Mad.83) it was held by a Division Bench
of the Madras High Court that the word "just" connotes
reasonableness and something conforming to rectitude and
justice, something equitable and fair.
Siddhant Garg And Anr. vs Registrar Of Companies & Ors. on 8 February, 2012
In Sidhant Garg and Anr Vs
Registrar of Companies & Ors. : (2012) 171 Comp. Cas. 326 it was
held by this Court (Manmohan, J.) that the word "just" would mean
that it is fair and prudent from a commercial point of view to
restore the company and that the Court has to examine the
concept of "justness" not exclusively from the perspective of a
creditor or a member or a debtor, but from the perspective of the
society as a whole. The special facts of the present case attract
this principle. The respondent has received monies from the
petitioner. He was entrusted with the job of finding a house for the
petitioner in Delhi. The averments in the petition prima facie
indicate that the property "Jodhpur Gardens" was purchased not
in the name of the petitioner but in the name of the company. The
shares held by the petitioner in the company were also taken
away from him without his knowledge or consent. The settlement
entered into between Quli and Singhania by which the shares
were transferred to Quli was held by this Court to be collusive.
These are disputes which are pending in the trial court. The
company is a defendant in the trial court. If its name is not
restored, it would cause injustice to the petitioner and also cause
prejudice to the trial as a whole. The message sent to the society
as a whole, if the name of the company is not restored to the
register, would be quite disturbing. The petitioner has to be
protected in the litigation pending before the trial court.
Alliance Commodities Pvt Ltd vs Office Of Registrar Of Companies, West ... on 9 July, 2019
In the given facts, citations referred on behalf of
appellant are not helpful whereas the law laid down in Alliance
Commodities Private Limited (supra) is squarely applicable in
the present case.