{"id":268462,"date":"2010-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-14T18:43:27","modified_gmt":"2015-07-14T13:13:27","slug":"colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nOJCA\/127\/2010\t 10\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 127 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 155 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nCOMPANY APPLICATION No. 278 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOLOURTEX\nINDUSTRIES LIMITED - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nREGISTRAR\nOF COMPANIES - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMRS\nSANGEETA N PAHWA for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR PS CHAMPANERI,for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n========================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Present
\n\tapplication has been preferred by the applicant herein   Colourtex
\n\tIndustries Ltd., petitioner of the Company Petition No.155 of 2008
\n\tfor an appropriate order directing the Registrar of Companies,
\n\tAhmedabad to accept the Form No.21 from the applicant under the
\n\tprovisions of Section 394<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956 in relation to
\n\tthe order dated 23.9.2008 made by this Hon’ble Court in Company
\n\tPetition No.155 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
Applicant
\n\tis petitioner of the Company Petition No.155 of 2008. The aforesaid
\n\tCompany Petition was moved for seeking sanction of the scheme of
\n\tarrangement in the nature of amalgamation of Vicol Pvt. Ltd., Jaytee
\n\tChem Pvt. Ltd., Parth Prints Pvt. Ltd., Jaycol Industries Pvt.
\n\tLtd.,Colourtex Exports Pvt. Ltd. Colour Synth Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
\n\tAisling Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anthracol Dyes and Intermediates
\n\tPvt. Ltd. with Colourtex Industries Ltd.  By common order dated 23rd
\n\tSeptember, 2008, this Court allowed the said petitions and
\n\tsanctioned the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
That
\n\tthe applicant-Company was required to produce the certified copy of
\n\tthe common order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed in
\n\tCompany Petition No.147 of 2008 to Company Petition No.155 of 2008
\n\talong with Form No.21 within a period of 30 days. However, there was
\n\ta default on the part of the petitioner in producing the certified
\n\tcopy of the order sanctioning the scheme along with Form No.21 and
\n\ttherefore, when the applicant submitted Form No.21 online with the
\n\trespondent-Registrar of Companies, Ahmedabad, the same was not
\n\taccepted as it was not submitted within the prescribed time. Hence,
\n\tthe applicant-Company has preferred the present application for the
\n\taforesaid relief.\n<\/p>\n
Initially,
\n\tShri Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant
\n\trequested to pass an appropriate order directing the respondent to
\n\taccept the Form No.21 along with orders passed by this Court on 23rd
\n\tSeptember, 2008 made in Company Petition Nos.147 of 2008 to 155 of
\n\t2008 online. However, as the said prayer was opposed by Shri
\n\tP.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India
\n\tappearing on behalf of the respondent pointing out that non
\n\tsubmitting of the order passed by the Hon’ble  Court sanctioning the
\n\tscheme along with the form No.21 within 30 days is considered to be
\n\ta default warranting prosecution and the payment of fine, Shri
\n\tPahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has
\n\tsubmitted that the applicant-Company and its Officers of the Company
\n\ti.e. Directors against whom the prosecution can be launched are
\n\tready to compound the said offence. It is submitted that as per the
\n\tprovision of Section 621-A<\/a> of the Companies Act, default \/ offence
\n\tis punishable. It is submitted that maximum fine which can be
\n\timposed for the default as provided under Section 394(4)<\/a> of the
\n\tCompanies Act is Rs.500\/- upon the Company and each and every
\n\tOfficer of the Company. He has submitted that who can be said to be
\n\tOfficer for the purpose of default and the prosecution is defined
\n\tunder Section 5<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, it is
\n\trequested to permit the applicant-Company and its concerned
\n\tDirectors to compound the offence \/ default in not submitting the
\n\tcertified copy of the order passed by this Court sanctioning the
\n\tscheme along with Form No.21 on imposing even the maximum fine. It
\n\tis submitted that if the aforesaid course is adopted, it will be in
\n\tthe interest of parties inclusive of respondent and avoid
\n\tunnecessary inconvenience to the parties. It is submitted that even
\n\totherwise, the respondent is required to launch prosecution before
\n\tthe appropriate Competent Criminal Court in which Companies and its
\n\tDirectors will have to appear and then to compound the default. It
\n\tis submitted that all the aforesaid procedure can be avoided. It is
\n\tfurther submitted that even Section 621-A<\/a> of the Companies Act even
\n\tthe default can be compounded and even the prayer to launching of
\n\tthe prosecution. Therefore, it is requested to consider the
\n\taforesaid prayer.\n<\/p>\n
Shri
\n\tP.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has
\n\tsubmitted that in view of the Affidavit filed by the
\n\trespondent-Company affirmed by its Director, Shri Kanakkumar
\n\tJariwala, admitting that the Company has committed the default in
\n\tsubmitting the Form No.21 online as per Section 394<\/a> of the Companies
\n\tAct and they are compounding in the default\/offence and considering
\n\tSection 621-A<\/a> of the Act, the respondent has no objection, if the
\n\tdefault\/offence committed by the Company and its officers are
\n\tpermitted to be compounded and the fine is imposed. It is submitted
\n\tthat he as well as respondent also share the same views expressed by
\n\tthe learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that
\n\tpermitting the applicant and its officers inclusive of the Directors
\n\tto compound the offence for the default on imposition of the fine
\n\twill be in the interest of the parties and even the burden of the
\n\tCourt will be reduced. It is submitted that either the Court or even
\n\tthe Central Government can compound the default in question either
\n\tbefore the prosecution or even during the prosecution. Therefore, it
\n\tis requested to pass an appropriate order.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at
\n\tlength.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis an admitted position that there is a default committed by the
\n\tapplicant in submitting Form No.21 online as per the provision of
\n\tSection 391(1)<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956. As per Sub-Section 3 of
\n\tSection 394 of the Companies Act<\/a>, within 30 (thirty) days after the
\n\tmaking of an order under said section, every company in relation to
\n\twhich the order is made shall cause a certified copy thereof to be
\n\tfiled with the Registrar for registration. It further provides that
\n\tif default is made in complying with this Sub-Section (3) of Section
\n\t394<\/a>, the Company, and every Officer of the Company who is in default
\n\tshall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.500\/-(Rupees
\n\tFive Hundred Only). Officer who is in default is defined under
\n\tSection 5<\/a> of the Companies Act. As per the Section 5<\/a> of the
\n\tCompanies Act for the purpose of any provision in the Companies Act<\/a>
\n\twhich enacts that an Officer of the Company who is in default shall
\n\tbe liable to any punishment or penalty, whether by way  of
\n\timprisonment, fine or otherwise, the expression  Officer who is in
\n\tdefault  means all the following officers of the Company, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe
\n\tmanaging director or managing directors;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe
\n\twhole-time director or whole-time \tdirectors;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tthe
\n\tmanager;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tthe
\n\tSecretary,<\/p>\n
(e)\tany
\n\tperson in accordance with whose directions \tor instructions the
\n\tBoard of directors of the \tcompany in accustomed to act;\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tany
\n\tperson charged by the Board with the \tresponsibility of complying
\n\twith that \tprovision;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tProvided
\n\t\t\tthat the person so charged has given his consent in this behalf to
\n\t\t\tthe Board;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(g)\twhere
\n\tany company does not have any of the officers specified in clauses\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) to (c), any \tdirector or directors who may be specified by \tthe
\n\tBoard in this behalf or where no director \tis so specified, all the
\n\tdirectors:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tProvided
\n\t\t\tthat where the Board exercises any power under clause (f) or
\n\t\t\tclause (g), it shall, within thirty days of the exercise of such
\n\t\t\tpowers, file with the Registrar a return in the prescribed form .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As
\n\tper Section 621(A)<\/a> of the Companies Act, Composition of certain
\n\toffences:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
\n\tCriminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any offence punishable under
\n\tthis Act (whether committed by a company or any officer thereof) not
\n\tbeing an offence punishable with imprisonment only, or with
\n\timprisonment and also with fine, may, either before or after the
\n\tinstitution of any prosecution, be compounded by the Central
\n\tGovernment on payment of credit, by the company or the officer, as
\n\tthe case may be, to the Central Government of such sums as that
\n\tGovernment may prescribe.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\n\tthat the sum prescribed shall not, in any case, exceed the maximum
\n\tamount of the fine which may be imposed for the offence so
\n\tcompounded:\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\teven the offence\/ default can be compounded even by the Registrar of
\n\tCompanies on an application made by the Company for the same. In
\n\tview of the additional Affidavit and the request made by the learned
\n\tCounsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties instead of
\n\trelegating the applicant to submit an appropriate application before
\n\tthe respondent for compounding the evidence, this Court itself is
\n\tconsidering the request of the applicant-Company for compounding the
\n\tdefault.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted on additional Affidavit that applicant-Company has 4
\n\t(four) Directors, namely, (1) Kanakkumar Jayantilal Jariwalal (2)
\n\tVishadkumar Jayantilal Jariwala (3) Pravinchandra Dhansukhlal
\n\tKabutarwala and (4) Maheshchandara Dhansukhlal Kabutarwala and the
\n\tsaid Additional Affidavit is filed by and on behalf of the
\n\tapplicant-Company affirmed by its Director, Shri Kanakkumar
\n\tJariwala, admitting that the applicant has committed the default in
\n\tsubmitting the form No.21 online along with the certified copy of
\n\tthe order passed by this Court sanctioning the scheme as per the
\n\tprovision of Section 394(1)<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956 and that
\n\tCompany and its Director\/s plead the guilty and request to compound
\n\tthe evidence\/ default which is permissible under Section 621-A<\/a> of
\n\tthe Act. It is submitted that the applicant-Company does not have
\n\tManager and\/or Secretary. It is further submitted that all the
\n\taforesaid 4 (four) Directors can be said to be responsible for the
\n\tdefault. It is submitted that there is no other officer of the
\n\tcompany who can be covered within the meaning of officer in default
\n\tdefined in Sec.5 of the Act for the purpose of Section 394(3)<\/a> of the
\n\tAct. It is further submitted that as per provision of Section 621-A<\/a>
\n\tof the Act, this default is compoundable. It is further submitted
\n\tthat Director\/s is\/are ready and willing to get the default
\n\tcompounded. Therefore, it is requested to permit the applicant and
\n\tthe remaining Directors to compound the default of imposing the
\n\tpenalty \/ fine of Rs.500\/-. Considering the above and considering
\n\tthe relevant provision of Companies Act<\/a>, more particularly, Section
\n\t5<\/a>, Section 394(3)<\/a> and Section 621-A<\/a> of the Companies Act and the
\n\trequest made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
\n\tapplicant permitting the applicant and its concerned Directors to
\n\tcompound the default in question and the fact that learned Counsel
\n\tappearing on behalf of the respondent through Registrar of Companies
\n\thas not opposed the same and has taken fair stand. As per table
\n\tgiven below, the applicant and its following Directors,<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Shri
\n\t\t\t\t\tKanakkumar Jayantibhai Jariwala<\/p>\n
Directors
\n\t\t\t\t\tof the applicant-Company<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Vishadkumar
\n\t\t\t\t\tJayantilal Jariwala<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Pravinchandra
\n\t\t\t\t\tDhansukhlal Kabutarwala<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Maheshchandra
\n\t\t\t\t\tDhansukhlal Kabutarwala<\/p>\n
are
\n\tpermitted to compound the default\/offence in submitting the Form
\n\tNo.21 online along with certified copy of the order passed by this
\n\tCourt passed in Company Petition Nos.147 of 2008 to 155 2008 as
\n\trequired under Section 394(4)<\/a> of the Companies Act, 1956 and the
\n\tapplicant and the aforesaid 4 (four) Directors are hereby held
\n\tguilty for the default\/offence committed by them as per Section
\n\t394(4)<\/a> of the Act, 1956 and are punished for the said offence and
\n\tare punished with fine of Rs.500\/- each.\n<\/p>\n
(1)Applicant-Company,(2)Shri
\n\tKanakkumar Jayantibhai Jariwala, (3) Vishadkumar Jayantilal Jariwala
\n\t(4) Pravinchandra Dhansukhlal Kabutarwala and (5) Maheshchandra
\n\tDhansukhlal Kabutarwala, are hereby directed to pay \/ deposit the
\n\tfine of Rs.500\/- each with the Registrar of Companies within a
\n\tperiod of 3 (three) weeks from today and applicant-Company is
\n\tdirected to comply with Section 394(3)<\/a> of the Companies Act and on
\n\tproduction of the Chalan of depositing of payment of aforesaid fine,
\n\tif the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in aforesaid
\n\tCompany Petition Nos. 147 of 2008 to 155 of 2008 dated 23.9.2008
\n\talong with Form No.21 online is submitted within a period of 2 (two)
\n\tdays from payment of such fine, respondent is directed to accept the
\n\tsame and it can be treated as compliance of Section 394<\/a> (4) of the
\n\tCompanies Act<\/a>, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tagreed by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant,
\n\tapplicant-Company shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000\/- (Rupees Five
\n\tThousand Only) by way of A\/c.payee cheque in the name of Shri
\n\tP.S.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to be
\n\tpaid directly within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today
\n\ttowards the cost and\/or professional fees.\n<\/p>\n
With
\n\tthis, present application is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
(M.R.SHAH,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(ashish)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print OJCA\/127\/2010 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 127 of 2010 In COMPANY PETITION No. 155 of 2008 In COMPANY APPLICATION No. 278 of 2008 ========================================================= COLOURTEX INDUSTRIES […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nColourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-14T13:13:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-14T13:13:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2009,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-14T13:13:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-14T13:13:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-14T13:13:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010"},"wordCount":2009,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010","name":"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-14T13:13:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/colourtex-vs-registrar-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Colourtex vs Registrar on 23 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}