This was a case which came before the Kerala High Court on the question of maintability of a petition under Section 543[1] of the Companies Act,1956[2] alleging misfeasance against the Official Liquidator. FACTS OF THE CASE In this case, the
In this case, the issue came before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court where the assessee as well as the Commissioner aggrieved by the order of Income Tax Tribunal sought for reference before the High Court. This reference under Section 256
This case[1] is related to the maintainability of the petition filed by three shareholders of the company named Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd., a public limited company which was having its registered office at Hyderabad. The shareholders filed the petition for the
In this case[1] the jurisdiction aspect came into picture related to the cases related to the company. Here, jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Meerut to try the complaints related to the case of the Company came into the picture. In
This case[1] was an appeal to the Delhi High Court in which a question related to the increase in the remuneration of the liquidator brought up before the Court. The court took into consideration multiple dimensions and came out with
This appeal[1] by special leave raises the vexed question whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital or revenue nature. The Court in this case took this issue in consideration and came out with its decision. FACTS
This petition[1] is filed under Section 111A[2] of the Companies Act, 1956[3]. In this case, the petitioner company has sought for rectification of the Register of members of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Ltd by deleting the names pf respondents
This was a writ petition[1] filed in the Andhra High Court related to the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a civil suit dealing with the question related to the disqualification of the director of a company under the Sections
The petition was filed under the provision of Section 482[1] of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[2] for quashing the complaint which was filed by the Respondent No.1, i.e. the Registrar of the Companies in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan
In this case[1], it is considered that if an Act contravenes the freedom conferred by the Constitution of India, it is invalid such as the Assam (On the Goods Transported Through Roads or Water Ways) Tax Act,1954. This case relates
