9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of the case, when they have issued notices for striking off the name of companies leading to striking off the name of company. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the concerned parties to bring to the notice of the Registrar of Companies, when STK notices were issued by the Registrar of Companies proposing to struck off the company. The petitioner/the company, etc., who are eligible to file any application under section 252 of Companies Act, 2013, can file an application/petition seeking to restore the name of the company, and in such a case, the Tribunal can consider the issue whether the Registrar of Companies is justified to strike off the company, while the present company petition is pending. Petition is hereby disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the L. J. Hooker name and brand, except as directors of the first respondent- company. (d) To restrain the seventh respondent either by itself or through its related or associated entities from holding themselves out as being associated with L. J. Hooker in any manner, and from using the name and brand of L. J. Hooker in any manner, etc. 2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the company petition, which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows : (1) Mr. Chaitanya Manohar (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) S/o. Madhavakrishnaiah Manohar. The petitioner is a member and the director of the first respondent-company. The petitioner invested in the company following the company& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a share capital, and is entitled to maintain the present petition on this ground as well. The qualification prescribed under section 399(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 is therefore fulfilled and the present petition is maintainable. (3) M/s. All Square Realtors India P. Ltd. (the first respondent-company) is a company incorporated in the year 2006 as a private limited company. The main objects of the first respondent-company as reflected in its memorandum of association are, inter alia, to carry on the business of developing franchises in real estate broking and as commission agent ; property valuers, managers and advisors, etc. (4) The memorandum of understanding sets out the fact that the petitioner had approached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sixth respondent 10% Seventh and eighth respondent 2% 3. The case is transferred from the Company Law Board, Chennai to this Tribunal, which is taken up on record of this Tribunal and it was listed before the Bench on several occasions, viz., August 28, 2017, September 19, 2017, October 11, 2017, November 3, 2017, December 18, 2017, February 15, 2018, March 12, 2018, April 6, 2018, May 3, 2018, July 16, 2018, August 16, 2018, September 28, 2018, December 31, 2018, January 16, 2019, January 22, 2019, February 1, 2019, March 11, 2019, March 18, 2019, April 4, 2019 and on June 14, 2019. The case stands adjourned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al that the main company petition itself is not maintainable to consider any relief as sought by the petitioner. 6. Shri Naman Jhabakh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, submits that the petition is still maintainable, as striking off the name of respondent No. 1-company, during the pendency of the company petition, is illegal and thus the strike off can be set aside/ignored. 7. The company petition is filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with sections 402 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 by making various allegation of acts of oppression and mismanagement. In order to maintain a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 or sections 241 and 242 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
