TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as the directors as per Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - The directors being disqualified u.s 164(2) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 , they could not maintain an appeal of likenature u/s. 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. This view was taken by me in similar appeal also. Moreover, to substantiate the contentions on the side of the appellant that they are also shareholders of the appellant company, I find no supporting proof. There is no pleadings in the appeal memorandum that the shareholders referred to in the Memorandum and Article of Association are subsequently changed by induction of appellants as directors or that they have acquired shares of the appellant company and become shareholders on the date of filing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore 1 month time to reply to the notice issued by the respondent. 4. The appellants further contend that the company is carrying on business and in operation on the date of striking of the name of the Company and to prove that the Company was doing business produced financial statements, annual returns and the Income Tax Returns. Upon the above said contentions the appellants pray for restoration of the name of the Company. 5. The respondent, Registrar of Companies, West Bengal has filed its objection / report contending that the name of the Company was struck of on 09/06/2017 after complying of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the Registrar of Companies has issued statutory notice in compliance of Rule 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two other appellants, i.e., 3rd and 4th appellants (Mr. Abhijeet Jagannath Bangad and Vinayak Kangaonkar) have affirmed their respective affidavit as a directorof the appellant company, namely, Jaishree Dealcom Private Limited. All of them have put their signatures in the application affixing the seal of the Directors. According to the Ld. Counsel for the appellants they are also shareholders of the appellant company and therefore as a member of the appellant company then can prefer an appeal. No such pleadings seen pleaded in the appeal memorandum that they have filed the appeal as the shareholders of the appellant company. On the other hand the affidavit in support of the appeal memorandum as stated earlier has been typed as if they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants, that the appeal is to be considered on merit as the appellant directors are also shareholders of the appellant company. 11. In view of the above said discussions, I come to a conclusion that the appeal preferred by the appellant company represented by its directors is not maintainable as they are disqualified directors on the date of filing of the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed, however, with a liberty to file fresh appeal under the provisions of Companies Act,2013. 12. Hence, dismissed with a liberty to file fresh appeal as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. 13. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the order may be issued to all the concerned parties, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
