9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 794 - HC - Companies LawRestoration of name of Petitioner in the Register of Companies - territorial jurisdiction of the Court - the cause of action arose due to the act of the ROC in Chennai and not the Central Government s act of directing the SFIO investigation. HELD THAT - The impact of Sub-Rule 3(1) on the striking-off of the name of the Petitioner-Company would be a legal argument which the Petitioner would have to raise before the appropriate forum. The said forum would be entitled to consider the effect of Sub-Rule 3(1) and also to examine the legality of the order dated 25th October, 2019. The mere fact that the Central Government may have directed the SFIO investigation, would not vest jurisdiction in this Court, especially when the specific order impugned in this case has been passed by the ROC in Chennai. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. The present petition is dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction over striking off the name of a company by the Registrar of Companies in a petition challenging the order.
Analysis: The petitioner, M/s Money Market Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition challenging the order dated 25th October, 2019, which struck off its name from the Register of Companies. The respondent, represented by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the court, citing previous cases where similar petitions were dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. R. Subramanian, argued that the case was distinct because of an SFIO investigation ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in Delhi. However, the court clarified that while the SFIO investigation was directed by authorities in Delhi, the order striking off the name of the petitioner was issued by the ROC in Chennai. The court referred to legal precedents to establish the principles of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction. It emphasized that for the court to have jurisdiction, the impugned action forming part of the cause of action must have occurred within its territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that in previous cases, orders of striking off were passed by ROCs in different states, leading to a lack of territorial jurisdiction for the court. The court highlighted that the cause of action in the present case arose from the ROC's action in Chennai, not the Central Government's direction for the SFIO investigation. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The court clarified that its decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case and disposed of all pending applications. The judgment underscores the importance of territorial jurisdiction in legal proceedings and the need for actions forming the cause of action to fall within the court's jurisdiction for it to entertain a petition challenging such actions.
|
