9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned are those , by virtue of their contractual obligation, i.e members, shareholders, directors, creditors, etc who had some sort of a binding interest, financial dealing or any other dealing with the company, who could very well be covered under the term persons concerned . In the present case, the Applicant is neither a person concerned nor an aggrieved person and on the other hand they seem to be aggrieved if the orders of the Registrar of Companies are upheld by not restoring the name of the company. So, to get eligibility for invoking section 252(1) either a person must be a person concerned or an aggrieved person - Since, the Applicant does not satisfy either of the criteria, there is no locus standi to file the present Petition. Further to it, the Application is not for invoking Section 252(1) for restoring the name of the company but for creating a hurdle/obstacle for restoring the name of the company. The Application is thoroughly misconceived. In view of the above, all the three points above are held against the Applicants. The Applicants had sought for several reliefs which in real sense neither be termed as reliefs, either for them or for the company, nor is any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parliamentary questions given by the Minister of Corporate Affairs on 06.02.2018 and 06.04.2018. (e) The Petitioner as per their financial statements for the year ended March 2016 and 2017 did not carry out any business for a period of two years before striking off of name of the Petitioner from the Register. Hence the Petitioner should not be revived under section 252 of the Act. (f) The Petitioner has lied on oath when they submitted that they have been carrying out business for a period of two years before their company was struck off by the Registrar. 2. The Applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: (i) That the Intervention Application be allowed. (ii) That the Respondent be directed to file a report with respect to the Petitioner Company before this Tribunal. (iii) That notices be issued for carrying out investigation of the Petitioner to the Income Tax Department, the Serious Fraud Investigations Office, the Reserve Bank of India and these authorities should file their respective affidavits on the affairs of the Petitioner. (iv) Such other and further reliefs as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper. 3. In reply to the Intervention Applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in order to create difficulties for the Petitioner from enforcing its claims as per the Applicable law. (j) The Petitioner had also filed a complaint with Economic Offences Wing against the Applicant and an FIR has been registered under sections 420, 409 and 120B of IPC. (k) The allegation that the Petitioner is a shell company is wrong and it has been reiterated that the Petitioner has been carrying on business of buying, selling and trading in securities market, etc. and the same is evident from the documents. (l) The Petitioner has accepted in the Petition the error on management's part in not filing the annual returns as required under the law. 4. Findings: Section 252 is reproduced herein: 252. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248, may file an appeal to the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Registrar and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the removal of the name of the company from the register of companies is not justified in view of the absence of any of the grounds on which the order was passed by the Registrar, it may order restoration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Companies is justified in removing the name on a valid ground on which the orders are passed. At the same time, the Tribunal shall give a reasonable opportunity of making representations from all those persons concerned. The power has been given to the Registrar of Companies to make such an Application to the Tribunal on certain grounds. 5. The points for consideration and adjudication are as follows: (a) Whether the Applicants can be treated as persons concerned under proviso to Section 252(1)? (b) Whether the Applicants can be treated as aggrieved persons by virtue of the orders passed by the Registrar of Companies removing the name of the Petitioner? (c) Whether the Applicants have locus standi to agitate before this Tribunal against the Petition? (d) Whether the disqualified directors can file this Petition? (e) Whether it is in the public interest that the Petitioner be restored? 6. From, a bare perusal of the Application, it is very clear that the Applicants cannot be treated as persons concerned under section 252(1) for the reason that the law stipulates that the persons concerned would have a legitimate interest in the revival of the company, conn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld against the Applicants. 9. The judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in Raj Chiktsa (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [2013] 179 Comp Cas 71 does not help the Applicants in this case as the Intervener in that case, Dr. Sandhya Ahuja was the wife of one member and a shareholder of the struck-off company. Further, there has been serious allegations of crimes against the directors of the company and the assets and liabilities of the company were already sold and there is no purpose of any nature in revival of the company. The power to revive a company is purely discretionary and the courts must take into consideration that it is just and necessary that the company be restored back to the Register for a valid reason. The Hon'ble High Court of Patna, in the above case dealt with the subject in a very detailed manner and came to a conclusion that under the existing circumstances it was not proper to order the restoration of the company. But here in the present case, the objection put forth by the Applicants is with regard to the deficiencies on the part of the company and its directors that may probably be some of the reasons for denying the revival of the company. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company or by the company be permissible under law. The last and the final issue as above is decided against the Applicants. 12. The Applicants had sought for several reliefs which in real sense neither be termed as reliefs, either for them or for the company, nor is any prayer worth being considered. The entire facts of the case as brought out in the Application is made with the sole object of creating obstacles for the revival of the company with a selfish motive by not minding the public interest or the interest of the shareholders. As stated supra the prayers need not be looked into. 13. None of the observations made by us can absolve the Petitioner from any deficiencies or violations with regard to legal compliances. All the violations, if at all any, on the part of the Petitioner can always be proceeded against by the authorities concerned or members of the company. 14. For all the aforementioned reasons, the Intervention Application is dismissed and there shall be a detailed order as regards C.P. 3713/2018. ORDER 1. This present Petition has been filed under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter as Act) by the Director of M/s. Verona Capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned profits and conducted business from the financial year 2009-10 till 2014-15. Apart from that, the company is fighting for certain claims against some corporate bodies and in the event the company succeeds in the said litigations there shall be a benefit to the company and also resulting in the payment of reasonable amounts as taxes. Therefore the revival of the company is in the public interest. 7. Hence, upon considering the facts and circumstances of this present petition, this Bench is of the view that, it would be just and proper to order restoration of the name of the Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC. 8. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. The restoration of the Company's name to the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC, is hereby ordered, with a direction that the Company shall comply with the Provisions of the Act. And further it will be subject to payment of costs of ₹ 7,50,000/- (seven lakhs fifty thousand only) to be paid by way of Demand Draft in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Mumbai , within 7 days from the receipt of the duly certified copy of this Order from this office. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
