TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed any appeal against the order of Registrar of the Companies. As the Company has not filed the Appeal within a period of three years from the date of order of the Registrar of the Companies which was lapsed in April, 2011 - it can be safely presumed that at the instance of the Respondent No. 2 Company the Appellant has filed the Appeal before Tribunal for taking advantage of 20 years limitation from the publication in official gazette as per section 252(3) of the Act - Ld. Tribunal has also rejected the Appeal on the ground of malafide intention. Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 142 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2021 - [Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) And (Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member(Technical) For App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrying on any business or operations since 31.03.1999. 4. The Appellant contended that the action of Respondent No. 1 for striking off the name of Respondent No. 2 Company is highly prejudice to the interest of the Appellant being Creditor of Respondent No. 2. The Appellant is a genuine small contractor and had supplied consultancy service for construction of forging and heat treatment furnaces and its engineering work and also provided ancillary services with respect to forging of steel and heat treatment plant for a total amount of ₹ 6,90,500/- and submitted bill No. 21 dated 08.07.2007 to the Respondent no. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 has paid part payment for an amount of ₹ 40,000/- after deducting ₹ 5,500/- for qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant submitted that the Appellant had produced valid invoice raised for his due alongwith various communication with the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 has also acknowledged the debt of the Appellant and filed affidavit before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has ignored the fact presented before it and doubted on the status of the Appellant as a Creditor. 9. It is also submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has rejected this Appeal on the ground that when the Company s name was struck off at that time who was the director of the Company is not on record. The RoC in its representation dated 08.01.2020 has mentioned that Harsha Choudhary and Aparna Choudhary were directors of the Company. However, the Tribunal has overlooked this fact a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its name in the register. Currently the Respondent No. 2 Company has new set of Directors viz Harsha Choudhary and Aparna Choudhary, who are now in a position to continue the work of the Respondent Company. It is also submitted that the Respondent No. 2 having its land and machinery. Thus, the Respondent Company in a position to restart its manufacturing upon its revival. The Respondent Company has got its lease renewed for a period of 30 years which is valid till 2028. In such a situation the order passed by the Tribunal as well as RoC may be set aside and direct the name of the company may be restored to the Registrar of the Companies. 13. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record. 14. The Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not the Director of the Company. Then in what capacity he has acknowledged the debt. Particularly, when Mr. Giriraj Singh aged 75 years and suffered a serious his health problem during the period from 2000 and has been undergoing treatment for over 20 years and also suffered sudden vision loss due to Glaucoma and Neurological health issues, it is doubtful that in such a health condition Mr. Giriraj Singh Choudhary acknowledged the debt through various letters dated 14.08.2007, 24.12.2007, 18.03.2008, 15.06.2008, 28.12.2012, 21.06.2014, 16.11.2016, 05.06.2019. 17. Now, we have considered whether the Tribunal has rightly rejected the Appeal on the ground of malafide intention? 18. It is apparent that the Respondent No. 2 Company R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
