9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic company, it is not open to any member of the public to move the Court seeking directions to interfere in the management and affairs of the Company. Adverting to the facts of the instant case be it seen that the Appellants sought intervention in Company Petition on the ground that they had filed a Civil Suit against the Company. This ground, though does not justify intervention in Company Petition as person aggrieved , in fact warrants the Company s name being restored in the Register of Companies, more so, as the Company is said to be even now involved in active litigation for recovery of moneys allegedly siphoned off by the Appellants fraudulently which according to Respondent is a staggering amount of ₹ 112 Crore - Appellants cannot be heard to say that Ms. Mansi Vora, admittedly a shareholder of Respondent No. 1 having stakes in the Company, was not entitled to seek restoration of name of Respondent No. 1 in the Register of Companies. Appellants have miserably failed to prove their locus and their malafide intention to thwart the course of law is writ large on the face of their attempted intervention. The Appellants could not claim to be the aggrieved persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Financial Statements for the period spanning Financial Years 2008-09 to 2016-17 besides any other documents as may be required by the ROC, Mumbai. The Company Petition was resisted by the Respondent - ROC, Mumbai on the ground that the Company had failed to file statutory returns for a continuous period of two years, which led ROC to believe that the Company had ceased to do its business warranting the name of Company being struck off from the Register of ROC. It appears that Respondent No. 1 herein produced audited report and financial statements for the years 2008-09 to 2016-17 and Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the Company was in operation. Further proof was laid to establish that the Company had earned profits and conducted business from the Financial Year 2009-10 till 2014-15. Restoration of Company was also sought on the ground that certain claims of the Company against some corporate bodies were pending litigation, benefit whereof would accrue to the Company only in the event of its revival besides benefitting the Exchequer by way of Taxes. Thus, revival of the Company was also projected as involving pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re legally untenable. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by and on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that since the Appellants prayer for intervention in the Company Petition stands rejected in terms of one impugned order, though passed on the same date when the impugned order allowing the Company Petition was passed, the Appellants are precluded from maintaining appeal against second impugned order whereunder the Company Petition for restoration of the Company on the Register of ROC was allowed. It is further submitted that the Appellants are the debtors and not members, shareholders, Directors or even creditors of the Company, thus, have no locus standi to seek intervention. Besides they cannot be termed as persons aggrieved under Section 252(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the filing of Civil Suit by the Appellants against Respondent No. l would in fact justify restoration of the name of the Company but for seeking intervention Appellants can neither be termed as persons concerned nor aggrieved persons . It is submitted that the Appellants have fraudulently siphoned off amount to the tune of ₹ 112 Crores and Respondent No. 1 is involved in active litigation for it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been rejected by the Tribunal in terms of the first impugned order whereby the I.A. No. 1250/2018 was rejected, their appeal qua the second impugned order passed in C.P. No. 1373 of 2018 allowing restoration of the name of the Company under Section 252 of the Act is not maintainable. Admittedly, Appellants were not the members, shareholders, Directors, creditors or workmen of the Company falling within the ambit of Section 252 (3) of the Act and the documentary evidence staring in their face in the form of awards and other relevant material portrays their capacity as Debtors . It is indisputable that in their capacity as Debtors they could not claim to be the aggrieved persons qua the order of restoration of name of Company and the appeal preferred against striking off of the name of the Company from Register of Companies at their instance would not lie. The appeal to the extent of such impugned order stands dismissed. Having regard to this position, the sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Appellants did have locus to seek intervention in the Company Petition preferred under Section 252 of the Act. 6. Section 252 (1) provides that an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the Register of Companies. It is in this context that the issue of locus of the Appellant in seeking intervention in Company Petition preferred against order passed by Registrar of Companies under Section 248 of the Act has to be appreciated. 7. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium means that unless there is infringement of a legal right warranting a legal action, there is no remedy available in law. This rests on the edifice that whenever law gives a right or prevents an injury, the affected person whose right has been infringed will have a remedy by way of legal action before a competent Court of Law. Based on this principle of jurisprudence, the Courts insist that the person seeking a legal remedy should be one whose legal rights have been jeopardized or are in jeopardy. This, put in simple terms, means that only such person can be permitted to seek legal remedy whose legal rights have been infringed. It is only invasion of legal rights that warrants grant of a legal remedy. Where a person has no legal interest, he cannot seek judicial intervention as he has no grievance in the eye of law. This principle of law has been judicially recognized and further reiterated by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed and appeal preferred against the same under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands dismissed. BSE Arbitral Award also appears to have granted claims in favour of Respondent No. 1. It is evident that the Appellants having failed to pay the amounts admissible under the NSE Award and BSE Award to Respondent No.1 fall in the category of Debtors of Respondent No. 1 and to wriggle out of their current liability of ₹ 35 Crores including interest to Respondent No. 1 have resorted to the unfair tactics of filing a frivolous application for seeking intervention in the Company Petition only to frustrate the process of law. In the given circumstances, Appellants cannot be heard to say that Ms. Mansi Vora, admittedly a shareholder of Respondent No. 1 having stakes in the Company, was not entitled to seek restoration of name of Respondent No. 1 in the Register of Companies. Appellants have miserably failed to prove their locus and their malafide intention to thwart the course of law is writ large on the face of their attempted intervention. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Appellants could not claim to be the aggrieved persons and had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
