24 June 2024



Davender Handa & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr.




Name of the Company can be restored only if the Tribunal is satisfied that it was carrying on business or in operation

Present Appeal is directed against the order by which an appeal filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for quashing of the order of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana ('Registrar) by which name of the Company has been struck off from the register of the Companies and its restoration to its register has been dismissed.

Section 250 provides the effect of dissolution of the Company in terms of Section 248 which provides that "where a company stands dissolved under section 248, it shall on and from the date mentioned in the notice under sub- section (5) of that section cease to operate as a company and the Certificate of Incorporation issued to it shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date except for the purpose of realising the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company."

Section 252(3) further provides that the name of the Company can be restored if the Tribunal is satisfied that it was carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the Company be restored to the register of the Companies.

In the present case, the sole ground of the Appellant is that the Company was in possession of a piece of land in Noida, therefore, it falls within the ambit of the discretion of the Tribunal, within the parameters of 'otherwise it is just' to restore the name of the company.

Furthermore, in present case, the land has been acquired by the Company by way of purchase on 27th June, 2009 much after the order was passed by the Registrar of striking off the name of the Company from the register, therefore, the Company stood dissolved in view of Section 248 and had no competence to transact business in view of Section 250 of the Act. Thus, in view thereof, since every case has to be decided on shown facts, the present case does not fall within the ambit of the provision of 'otherwise it is just'. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : Name Striking off Legality

Share :