TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of time. Since it was the company which had applied to have its name struck off under the relevant scheme, the company could not have applied under Section 560(6) of the Act unless such application was made within a short time of its name being struck off and an obvious mistake on the part of the company to apply under the scheme was demonstrated. Though the company seeks to assert that the word "company" in Section 560(6) of the Act has to be given a wider meaning, it is not possible to accept that a company whose name had been struck off on its invitation six or seven years back would be permitted to apply under such provision for the striking-off to be undone. In such a situation, it would be only a creditor or a shareholder of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrar of Companies. This was not a case of the Registrar finding the company to be non-functional and issuing a notice under Section 560(2) of the Act before striking off the company's name. The company's name was struck off pursuant to an application admittedly made by the company under a simplified exit scheme of 2005 introduced by the Central Government giving an option to non-functional companies to exit and have their names struck off and, thus, the officers of such non-functional companies to be absolved of their obligations under the said Act. Pursuant to such scheme, the company applied to the Registrar on its representation that it did not have any business or worthwhile assets. In terms of the simplified system under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also contended that since the Registrar was represented before the Company Court when the order dated November 13,2014 was passed, it is apparent that the Registrar did not have any objection to the revival of the company and, even if the petitioner did not bring it to the notice of the Company Court that the name of the company had been struck off on the company's application, the Registrar ought to have brought such fact to the notice of the Court. The company insists that the present application has been made with ulterior motive and for oblique purpose upon the applicant herein discovering in course of proceedings instituted under Sections 397 and 398 of the said Act against the applicant that the company now stands revive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsely affected by the impugned order for such person to be regarded as a person aggrieved thereby. The applicant herein was a shareholder of the company whose name had been struck off. The applicant is deemed to have been aware of the name of the company being struck off. Since the applicant did not seek the revival of the company despite its name remaining struck off for a number of years, it may be inferred that the applicant accepted the company's name being struck off. If the company were to be revived, the applicant ought to have had notice thereof or, at any rate, the Court should have ascertained whether the applicant or other shareholders were interested in the same. What the applicant now demonstrates is that the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmission made at the Bar in course of the hearing of a matter. It is evident that the order dated November 13,2014 was passed without the Court's attention being drawn to the fact that the name of the company in this case had been struck off at the company's behest and not due to any default on its part as discovered by the Registrar of Companies. The judgments cited by the company to resist the application are not of much relevance at the present juncture since the consideration here is limited to whether the company should have been revived on the application of a person who did not qualify under sub-section (6) of the relevant provision and without notice to the others who may have been interested in the company. As to the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... today seeking the order of revival to be recalled, no ground is made out to resist the same. CA 423 of 2015 is allowed by recalling the order dated November 13,2014 by which the name of the company was restored to the list of active companies. As a consequence, the company's name remains struck off and the company has no legal existence since the day its name was struck off in 2007. The applicant will be entitled to the costs of this application assessed at 1500 GM to be paid by the principal person named in CP No. 936 of 2014 who took over control of the company upon its revival. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
