9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in O.S.No.7 of 2016, pending on the file of the V Additional District Court, Madurai. The suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for the following relief:- ''[a] granting a decree for rendition of accounts, 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled. However, the said fact has not been disclosed by the Plaintiff. In this regard, the following documents are filed along with this memo as annexures. (i) A copy of the notice dated 07.04.2017 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 creati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies on 29.06.2017. 5. It is submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff is the defunct Company and till date, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpeditiously as possible and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Civil Revision Petition. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior 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 Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
