Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (5) TMI 187 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of the appellant in proceedings under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Validity of the arbitration awards given the company's status.
3. Allegations of mala fides and collusion in the restoration petition.
4. Locus standi of the appellant.
5. Application of res judicata.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of the Appellant:
The appellant, M/s ZTE Corporation, challenged the dismissal of its application seeking impleadment in proceedings under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company, M/s Value Advisory Services Private Ltd. (VAS), was struck off from the Register of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 29.12.2006. The appellant had entered into a consultancy agreement with the company, leading to disputes resolved through arbitration in Singapore. The company obtained partial and final awards in its favor, which the appellant contested, arguing the company was non-existent at the time of the awards.

2. Validity of the Arbitration Awards:
The appellant contended that the arbitration awards were nullities as the company was struck off the ROC register at the time of the awards. The company filed an execution petition to enforce the awards, which the appellant objected to on the grounds of the company's non-existence. The court noted that the appellant had alternative remedies, including filing objections during the execution proceedings.

3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Collusion:
The appellant alleged that the restoration petition filed under Section 560(6) was collusive between the company and its creditors, aiming to execute the arbitration awards fraudulently. The court examined the petitioners' claims, supported by the company's balance sheet, and found no evidence of collusion. The company's liabilities towards the petitioners were undisputed, and the ROC's report supported the restoration.

4. Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The court addressed the appellant's locus standi, referencing the Chancery Division's judgment in Jayham Ltd., In re, which allowed a third party to intervene in restoration applications. The court accepted the appellant's locus standi but noted that the appellant had alternative remedies. The court emphasized that restoration should be the rule, not the exception, and discretionary power should be exercised cautiously.

5. Application of Res Judicata:
The appellant argued that the principle of res judicata barred the restoration petition, citing a previous order denying the company's restoration. The court rejected this argument, stating that the previous order was between the company and the ROC, and the current petitioners were not parties to that proceeding. The plea of constructive res judicata was also dismissed, as the petitioners had established themselves as creditors with valid claims supported by the company's balance sheet.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the restoration of the company's name. The appellant's objections could be raised during execution proceedings. The petition was dismissed with costs, emphasizing the discretionary nature of restoration under Section 560(6) and the importance of fairness and justice in enabling the company to recover its dues. The court highlighted that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply, and the petitioners' claims were valid and supported by evidence.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates