Find a Lawyer

TAHIR UMAR versus SUN COLOUR GARMENTS

Section 9439 Registrar strikes a non-compliant company by the name of RegisterScope: It is struck that the company is not doing any business and lacks assets and liabilities, no objection has been received, registrar has removed its name done. The applicant's registrar of companies, a company that claimed to be one of the sponsored shareholders and directors, was that they were not a party to the board of directors' action and were unanimous in their application. The reason for this is the details of the resolution. To find the company dissolved, it was sheer fraud, unfounded and liable to be set aside. The Volatility Petitioner was upset over his consent that the company was found to have been due to his consent to the alleged unanimous resolution of the Prima. False claim of consensus but the fact of the matter was that even if there was no resolution, the Registrar had no power to remove the name of the company from the register in Dyer Section 439 (1), Ordinance of Companies, 1984 Where he had a valid reason to believe that the company was not doing business or was not in operation, the Registrar stated in a written statement that the Company's administration had no legal basis, including Form A and Form 29, after the Registrar since 1991 The statement was not filed, inviting objections to the cancellation of the name of the company, and in the Gazette, the notice was posted, Once such a notice was published in the Official Gazette under section 439. ()) Under the Ordinance and then under section 943 5 () of the Ordinance after which the Company was dissolved, the Petitioner may not have received personal notice from the Registrar. famous lower court advocate from Killa Abdullah lawyer