Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition is filed under Section 560(6) of Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) for restoration of company Shree Mohan Sugar Mills Limited . 2. Facts as narrated in the petition are that the company was doing its business as per the object clause but it could not get profitable business. The repeated efforts to fetch good profit could not succeed. Since Company was not profit making company, it could not file the annual return and balance sheet with the Registrar of Companies ( ROC). In 2011, company intended to file some documents on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. On perusal of the site, it appeared that name of company is struck off from the statutory register. It is pleaded that in response to the enquiry made by the petitioner-company, it is learnt that in the year 2007 suo motu action for struck off the name was taken by the ROC. Name of company was finally struck of on 28.01.2008. The ROC informed the petitioner that if petitioner wants to restore the name of compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. 1. These matters have been referred by the Division Bench for reconsideration of the principle expounded in the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Fatehchand vs. Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer and others (2009 (4) M.P.L.J 50). 2. The questions to be considered by the Full Bench have been formulated by the Division Bench in F.A. No.514/2012 and F.A. No.1134/2012 vide order dated 28.11.2014, as follows:- 1. Whether the ratio of the decision in Fateh Chand Supra (supra) is correct?2. Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bombay vs. M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, AIR 1960 SC 980 has application to Article 1-A of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended by Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008? 3. M.A. No.1774/2011 has been ordered to be heard analogously with the two appeals vide order dated 01.09.2015, hearing whereof was already in progress on the aforesaid two questions. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This pro bono publico under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is filed seeking following reliefs : I. to restore the land of members of tribal family, alleged to be taken, pursuant to lease deed executed by respondent no.6 and 7; II. to take appropriate action against respondent no.5 for abusing its statutory powers; III. to issue such appropriate writs/order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. We have reasons to record such a relief in view of the fact that this Court while passing order on application for amendment in the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2015, dealt with various objections regarding the said amendment in the writ petition. In fact it is the submission of learned senior Counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 that the petition as carved for the aforesaid reliefs, is not maintainable before this Court in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Balco Empl...
Tag this Judgment!