Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (4) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 780 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - striking off the name of company - Held that:- It is quite clear that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the allegation of oppression and mismanagement. The question of oppression and mismanagement of a company can only be decided by this Tribunal and the alleged allegations of oppression and mismanagement against the company K. C. Ghosh & Sons Pvt. Ltd, is not an issue in a Civil Suit, which is pending in Court. Therefore, the respondent's objection in this respect has no force. The respondent's objections are relating to the existence of the company. The respondents claim that the name of the respondent No. 1 company is struck off from the list of the Registrar of Companies maintained by the order of Registrar of Company. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, this company petition has been filed on 27th July, 2012 and the name of the company has been struck off from the register of the companies by Registrar of Companies in the year 2012, after filing of the petition. Therefore, it will have no effect on the present petition because on the date of the filing of the petition, company was in existence and it is also pertinent to mention that in the I A, the petitioner has claimed interim relief for rendering the accounts in respect of dealings with the funds and properties of the respondent No. 1 company, from the date of filing of the company petition till striking off. Therefore, the petitioner has not asked any account after the striking off the company. It is also pertinent to mention that directors are also individually responsible. Therefore, the petition is maintainable against directors. It is also necessary to mention that on the date of the filing of the petition, companies name was not struck off and it has been struck off only during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner claims that it is also a proof of alleged act of oppression and mismanagement that companies name has been struck off when the company was under effective management and control of respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. In view of the above, it appears that interim application deserves to be allowed. I.A. is hereby allowed and respondent directors are directed to render the accounts in respect of dealings with the funds and properties of the respondent No. 1 company from the date of filing of the company petition till striking off and it is also being directed to investigate to make a report in respect of dealings of the transactions of the respondent Nos. 2,3,4,5 and 8 in connection with management and affairs of the company by any independent auditor. Parties are directed to give three names of independent auditors within 15 days from today from the date of order. If the parties fail to give names of the independent auditors within 15 days, then the Tribunal itself will appoint the independent Auditor for investigating into the dealings and transactions of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 in connection with the management and affairs of the company. This is purely an interim order to ensure that the assets of the Company are properly accounted for and protected.
|