9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cannot be faulted. As under the Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of Branch or Office or other Place of Business) Regulations, 2000, there is a prohibition under regulation 3 for establishing branch office in India by a foreign company without prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the fact that we have already held above that the appellant has not been able to place any material on record to show that the respondent-company has any office (be it a site office or project office or warehouse or store house) within the territory of India, the provisions of the Regulations of 2000 would not be applicable. No good ground to interfere with the order of admission passed by learned company judge. - OSA NO.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the learned company judge, company petition has been admitted and posted for hearing on the question of advertisement of the petition. Challenging the said order of admission of the company petition, this appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Sri S. V. Rajesh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri S. S. Naganand, learned senior counsel along with Sri A. C. Achappa, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 4. To support his contention that the respondent-company is carrying on business activities in India, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on certain print outs of the website of the respondent-company wherein it has been stated that the company provides support system to its c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2012)175 Comp. cases 338 to support his contention that if a company has an office or establishment within the territory of India it would have to comply with the provisions of sections 592 to 594 of the Companies Act. On facts, the said decision would not be applicable as in the said case the company in question was a subsidiary of an Indian company which admittedly had its warehouse, store house in India where the goods of the company was stored. The said company also had transactions within India and had an address of correspondence in India. As such, we are of the view that the ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of this case. 6. As regards admission of the debts by the appellant-company payable to the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
