Back
CHITTA RANJAN DASH, PARTHA SARATHI SEN
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.
1. As both these appeals arise out of a common Judgement passed in two writ petitions, both the appeals are disposed of by this common Judgement.
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case it is beneficial to mention here that no affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State (present appellant in both the appeals) in either of the two writ petitions. Learned Counsel appearing for the State before the Hon’ble Single Judge had agreed for disposal of the two writ petitions without affidavits being filed on the ground that arguments have to be advanced on question of law only.
3. A compendium of facts relevant for disposal of these appeals is as follows:
The "change of name" of a company does not constitute a transfer of leasehold right or any asset of the company, and the corporate veil should not be pierced in the absence of any material of any kin....
Point of Law ; Where partnership Firm became a private limited liability partnership, categorically held that the stamp duty /registration fee cannot be levied upon conversion of partnership firm to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the change of name of a company, as permitted by the Registrar of Companies, does not involve a transfer of assets and therefore does not requ....
A company is a distinct legal entity, and changing its directors does not constitute a transfer of property, thus invalidating the stamp duty demand.
Only a name change of a company does not necessarily amount to a change of ownership under relevant statutes.
In the performance of this duty, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another autho....
Transfer fees cannot be levied without clear justification based on concrete policy application; a proper record examination is crucial in judicial decisions.
The court established that the demand for transfer fee and additional transfer fee by the respondent, GIDC, was illegal and contrary to the facts and materials on record, and therefore, quashed and s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
