Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 187 - DELHI HIGH COURTApplication for Restoration of the name of company by the creditors - Record shows that the company M/s Value Advisory Services Private Ltd. (VAS- hereinafter referred to as "the Company") was struck off from the Register of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 29.12.2006 which was pursuant to a Simplified Exist Scheme, 2003 - Test of locus standi - The appellant (company) is aggrieved by the order wherein the application filed by him under order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment in the proceedings pending under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 had been dismissed. Held that:– Merely because a financial loss would be suffered by the appellant qua the arbitration Awards which had been passed against him would not entitle him to come under the exception seeking a refusal of the restoration of the company. The position of the company vis-à-vis this stand is that a healthy company who was admittedly operational at the time when its name was struck off would be deprived of its right to function as a going concern and in the bargain would not be permitted to recover its dues which amounts have accrued to it under the Awards of the Arbitral Tribunal. The positive averments made by the petitioners in the petition (C.P. No. 200/2011) alleging to be creditors of the company were dully supported by the balance sheet of the company which is an undisputed document. The elaborate submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the petitioners are in fact nothing but stooges of the company thus does not hold water. They had prima facie established themselves as creditors of the company. The last submission urged by the petitioner was based on the principle of res judicata. - Held that :- The object of Section 11 of the Code is to confer finality to a decision arrived at by a competent court between interested parties after a genuine context; once the matter has been determined by such a competent Court neither party can be permitted to re-open it in a subsequent litigation. The plea of the appellant being that the petitioners before the single Judge were nothing but stooges of the company and since the order was binding upon the company, it would operate as a res judicata qua the two petitioners as well has already been answered by this court by holding that the petitioners had set up a valid claim of being creditors of the company dully supported by the balance sheet of the company which document remained un-assailed even by the ROC and which document in fact reflected that the company had a liability of more than Rs.10 lacs towards its creditors which included the aforenoted two petitioners. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
|