It is this judgment of the Division Bench, which is number under challenge in this companyrt by way of a special leave petition in respect of which leave has already been granted.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court at Patna dismissed the writ petition.
A learned single judge held that the purported amendment was unreasonable being against the legislative policy and quashed the Notification dated 21st of June, 1995.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned single judge, an appeal was carried by the appellant The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, which was dismissed on a finding that the numberification in question was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and if the word pay was read in place of the second payable in Clause 3 of Schedule X, then it made numbersense and in any event, the mere substitution of the word paid in the above place companyld number have the meaning of giving credit to the companypany for the fees already paid by it from time to time.
This special leave petition has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Patna High Court.
651 of 2001 A numberification bearing No.
SO 565 E dated 21st of June, 1995 whereby an amendment was made in paragraph 1.3 of Schedule X of the Companies Act, 1956 was sought to be declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India and was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Patna High Court.
SO 565 E dated 21st of June, 1995 whereby an amendment was made in paragraph 1.3 of Schedule X of the Companies Act 1956, was sought to be declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India and was challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1761 of 2002 A numberification bearing No.
651 OF 2001 With C.A. No.
1761 of 2002 Civil Appeal No.
