Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (7) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0(6) of the Act was not filed by a creditor or a shareholder of the concerned company or by the company itself and, as such, it could not have been received by the Court. It is the further grievance of the applicant that the applicant had no notice or knowledge of such petition. The name of the company was not struck off for any apparent default on the part of the company to file its documents or submit its return in accordance with the said Act with the Registrar of Companies. This was not a case of the Registrar finding the company to be non-functional and issuing a notice under Section 560(2) of the Act before striking off the company's name. The company's name was struck off pursuant to an application admittedly made by the com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the business of the company and some of the erstwhile directors of the company had entered into an arrangement with the outsider for the revival of the company and the outsider taking over the business of the company upon its revival. In opposing the present application, it is asserted that the present applicant cannot be aggrieved by the order reviving the company since the applicant, as a shareholder of the company, only stands to gain by its revival. It is also contended that since the Registrar was represented before the Company Court when the order dated November 13,2014 was passed, it is apparent that the Registrar did not have any objection to the revival of the company and, even if the petitioner did not bring it to the notice of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave notice of the proceedings on which the order was made or a right to be represented in Court and such opportunity had been denied to the applicant. In some cases, the applicant may also have to demonstrate how the applicant was adversely affected by the order that is sought to be recalled; but that is not a mandatory criterion in every case. In a petition for review, on the other hand, the applicant has to demonstrate how the applicant is adversely affected by the impugned order for such person to be regarded as a person aggrieved thereby. The applicant herein was a shareholder of the company whose name had been struck off. The applicant is deemed to have been aware of the name of the company being struck off. Since the applicant did n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k off for the default on its part to submit its returns or documents with the Registrar. It is true that in the body of the petition the circumstances in which the name of the company was struck off had been clearly indicated. But it is a reality that given the pressure of the sheer number of matters under which Courts function now, it is not possible for a Judge to go through a petition with a tooth-comb without relying primarily on the submission made at the Bar in course of the hearing of a matter. It is evident that the order dated November 13,2014 was passed without the Court's attention being drawn to the fact that the name of the company in this case had been struck off at the company's behest and not due to any default on i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d be only a creditor or a shareholder of the company who may apply within 20 years of the company's name being struck off for its revival. In any event, the petition under Section 560(6) of the Act was not filed by the company. Since neither a shareholder nor a creditor of the company applied for its revival upon the company's name being struck off on the company's application, and a shareholder of the company is in Court today seeking the order of revival to be recalled, no ground is made out to resist the same. CA 423 of 2015 is allowed by recalling the order dated November 13,2014 by which the name of the company was restored to the list of active companies. As a consequence, the company's name remains struck off and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates