12 Dec 2019
HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2976
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP76/2019
Relief under both routes was refused: restoration under s.765 was not just because applicants produced fabricated, inconsistent and back‑dated evidence and the deregistration was likely a deliberate device to evade liabilities; rectification/removal under s.42 was inappropriate as a back‑door to restoration and the discretionary balance did not favor the applicants; however Jaldhi was properly joined as it had direct interests. Costs ordered against applicants on indemnity scale.