Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2018 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1766 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAIIntervention Application - 'persons concerned' - Whether the Applicants can be treated as "persons concerned" under proviso to Section 252(1)? - 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? - Whether the Applicants have locus standi to agitate before this Tribunal against the Petition? - Whether the disqualified directors can file this Petition? - Whether it is in the public interest that the Petitioner be restored? HELD THAT:- 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, connected to the company and are concerned either by way of a contractual obligation or by any other obligation. So, the yardstick is that the "Persons Concerned" would have a binding interest in the company and are responsible for the affairs and conduct of the company. In a way "persons concerned" 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 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 - 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. The Intervention Application is dismissed.
|