Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 671 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - Petitioner is neither a Member of the first Respondent Company nor did the 24 persons who had given consent to file the Company Petition are Members of the CSITA - whether the Appellant is a Member of the Section 8 Company and has the locus standi to file this Appeal and also whether the Petitioner could have file the Petition under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013? HELD THAT:- As per the definition, a person cannot be treated as Member of the Company unless his name is entered in the Register of Members of the Company - The term Member is different from that of Shareholder. A Shareholder can be Shareholder by acquiring shares but will not be Member till his name is entered in the Register of Members of the Company. This definition is relaxed in case of Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, where even a Shareholder is treated as a Member. In the instant case, apart from not being a party to the main Petition, the Appellant herein is, admittedly, only a Member of the Church and he has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate that any of the requirements under Section 2(55) of the Companies Act, 2013, is met. Admittedly, there is a four layered Election Process to become a Member of the Company. The persons acting as Member of CSITA are in fact first elected by various Parishes falling under more than 20 Dioceses and these Parishes Member elect people to the Diocesan Council and also to the Synod Council who in turn elect the process of the Company - This Tribunal is of the earnest view that merely because a person is a Member of Church, he does not have the locus standi to file a Petition under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, against a Section 8 Company of which, he is admittedly, not a Member. As the Petitioner in application, does not satisfy any of the requirements stipulated under Section 2(55) of the Companies Act, 2013, he cannot seek any exemption under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 - A brief perusal of the paragraphs in the Impugned Order, shows that the said paragraphs are by and large the submissions of the parties and there were no strictures or conclusion, arrived at by the Tribunal (NCLT), which require Expunging. Appeal dismissed.
|