TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of sub-Section (5) of Section 248 of the Act. Sub Section (5) is very clear that before publication in the Official Gazette about the striking off the name of company, notice has to be issued to the company and thereafter on the basis of the reply, the Registrar can pass an order, but, before passing an order, the grounds given or defence taken in the reply to the notice should have to be verified - When such being the case, the order of striking off the name of the company itself is bad in law and when the notices itself have not been issued, then it is a good ground for the petitioners-companies to prefer an appeal under Section 252 of the Act. - Petitioner are at liberty to approach the Tribunal u/s 252 of the Companies A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners-companies that in the writ petitions where notices under sub-Section (5) of Section 248 of the Act has been issued, no opportunity of being heard has been given as it is mandatory under the provisions of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-companies submits that after the expiry of time mentioned in the notice, the Registrar may pass order under sub-Section (5) of Section 248 of the Act. The precondition of the order passed under sub-Section (5) is to issue notice, but, no such notice has been issued to the petitioners-Companies. Under these circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents in striking off the name of petitioners-companies from the register of company is bad in law and contrary to the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent-Registrar to issue notice to the petitioners-companies before passing any order for the purpose of sub-Section (5) of Section 248 of the Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed on 01.10.2018 by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in C.R.P.(NPD). No.1476 of 2018, tilted AGD Private Limited vs. Registrar of Companies, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that an order requires to be passed in terms of sub-Section 6 and published as per sub-Section 5 of the Act. Mere publication alone would not give rise to a cause of action to file an appeal. 7. On the other hand learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents submits that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
