2013 (11) TMI 1791 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Judgment under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Maintainability of the appeal due to the appellant company being struck off from the Register of Companies.

Judgment Summary:

1. The appellant challenged the award passed by the sole Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Act, alleging errors in considering the pleas raised. The appellant argued that there was no contract for arbitration, no arbitrable dispute, and issues of notice, jurisdiction, and limitation. The appellant contended that the award was without jurisdiction and sought its setting aside. Various judgments were cited in support.

2. The respondent objected to the appeal's maintainability, stating that the appellant company had been struck off the Register of Companies, rendering it non-existent and incapable of maintaining the appeal. The respondent argued that the appellant had participated in the arbitration proceedings and was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The respondent also highlighted the clause in the invoice allowing arbitration.

3. The appellant disputed the respondent's evidence regarding the company's striking off, claiming it was not proven according to law. The appellant argued against the acceptance of the documents presented as proof of striking off.

4. The court considered the points for determination: the maintainability of the appeal due to the company's strike off, the validity of the arbitrator's award, and the judgment passed by the trial court. The court addressed the first point regarding the company's legal entity status, emphasizing the necessity of incorporation under the Companies Act for legal standing. The court detailed the process of incorporation and the consequences of being struck off the register.

5. The court examined the evidence provided by the respondent, including search results and applications for striking off the company's name. The court found that the appellant had voluntarily sought to be struck off the register and had not applied for restoration, leading to the conclusion that the company was non-existent and therefore not entitled to sue. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and Points 2 and 3 were not considered.

6. The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, directing the parties to bear the costs of the proceedings.