9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, make it very clear that even if the name of the Company is struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, its registration shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date. However, there is no embargo for the suit to be filed or to be continued for the purpose of realising the amounts due to the Company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the Company. In other words, the Company, whose name has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Register of Companies, cannot carry on any business - there is no case made out for striking off the plaint, merely because the name of the Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts, directing the defendant to render a true and proper accounts for the usage of the software Program of the plaintiff in the various branches of the defendant from 05.04.2007 till date and pay the legitimate amount that may be found due to the plaintiff together with a reasonable interest that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. [b] directing the defendants herein to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of this action; and [c] granting such other and further reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and thus render justice.'' 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the first respondent/plaintiff Company has been struck off from the Register of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017 issued by the Registrar of Companies in proceedings in File No: ROC/CHN/DR(SK)/1/PVT.ACT/STK-5 under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (the name of the Plaintiff Company is at Sl.No.1452) (ii) A copy of the notice of striking off and dissolution dated 05.07.2017 issued under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Registrar of Companies in proceedings in File No: ROC/CHN/STK-7/1/2017 annexed herewith. (name of the Plaintiff company is at Sl.No.1043) 3. The Plaintiff in the present suit is a Company specialized in creating software programmes. It is trite law that a company gets a right to sue or be sued only when it is incorporated. In the absence of incorporation under the Companies act, an association of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no steps have been taken to restore the Company to the files of the Registrar of Companies. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submits that a plaint can be struck off only under Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. It is submitted that Order 6 Rule 16 of C.P.C. is not attracted under the circumstances. Therefore, the Memo, which has been rejected by the Court on 21.12.2022 does not warrant any interference at this stage. 7. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has also filed an application in I.A.No.577 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and that the Court below was informed about the same on 21.12.2022 and therefore, the Court below concluded that the Memo filed by the petitioner was liable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 11. The suit that has been instituted by the first respondent in O.S.No.7 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. cannot be short-circuited, merely because the first respondent's/plaintiff's name has been struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. 12. The provisions of Sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, make it very clear that even if the name of the Company is struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, its registration shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date. However, there is no embargo for the suit to be filed or to be continued for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
