The division judge bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice B.V. Nagrathana of the apex court in the case of Nirendra Nath Kar Vs Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors didn’t interfere with the decision of the high court in which it was held that the appellant has no locus standi as he is neither a Company nor a member nor creditor hence he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to question the order of the Registrar in striking off the name of the Company from the register of RoC as referred to under Section 560(5) of the Act 1956.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the initial corporation of the company was in the name of Basanti Cotton Mills Private Limited. Thereafter, the name of Basanti Cotton Mills Private Limited was changed to Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Private Limited and the last annual return was filed with the registrar of the company for the financial year 2002-2003. The name of the Company in terms of Section 560(5) of the Act, 1956 was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, at the instance of the respondents (Directors of the Company). The registrar of the company filed an affidavit in which it was asserted that the company was not functioning and not carrying out any business and the last annual return was filed of the year 20022003.
In accordance with Section 560(6) of the Act 1956, a complaint was brought before the High Court by the appellant, who identified himself as one of the Company's Directors. The application was granted by judgment and order after the learned single judge found that the process outlined in Section 560 of the Act of 1956 was not followed before removing the Company's name from the RoC register.
The judgment of the single bench of the High court was set aside by the Division Judge Bench of the High court and the high court held that the appellant has no locus standi as he is neither a Company nor a member nor creditor hence he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to question the order of the Registrar in striking off the name of the Company from the register of RoC as referred to under Section 560(5) of the Act 1956.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant presented some document before the hon’ble court that were not presented before the High court. The respondents have seriously disputed every piece of evidence presented by the appellant, including the DIN forms obtained in September/October 2008—far after the company's name was stricken off the register in 2006—and even Form 32, which the appellant has now entered into the record.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent brought to the notice the affidavit which was filed before the high court of which a reference has been made by this Court indicating that the present appellant was nowhere recorded as Director of the Company at any given point of time.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment has proceeded on the basis of the facts referred to in the affidavit in opposition filed by the RoC while recording a finding regarding the locus of the appellant in assailing the order of the Registrar striking of the name of the Company under Section 560(5) of the Act, 2003 and, at this stage, it is difficult to place reliance on the documents placed by the appellant to claim himself to be one of the Directors of the Company.
CASE NAME- Nirendra Nath Kar Vs Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors
CORUM- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice B.V. Nagrathana
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4448 OF 2015
DATE- 29.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
