ARUN KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, GWALIOR
LAWS(NCLT)-2017-12-499
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Decided on December 15,2017

ARUN KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Registrar Of Companies, Gwalior Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Manorama Kumari, Member - (1.) This Appeal is filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Appellant Shri Arun Kumar Jain as its Director seeking restoration of the name of the Company, i.e., M/s. Jawahar Exim Limited in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior.ROC" for short]. It is further stated by the Appellant that the Respondent ROC has disqualified all the Directors of the Appellant Company under Section 164(2) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 due to non-filing of financial statements and annual returns for the last three years.
(2.) The instant Appeal is filed in the capacity of Director, but when the Appellant came to know that he is disqualified as Director, he filed one IA No. 399 of 2017 before this Tribunal to press the instant Company Appeal since he is also a Member of the Appellant Company as there will be a technical difficulty which may arise at the time of hearing of the instant Appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act.
(3.) For the purpose of disposal of the Interlocutory Application filed in the said Appeal, it is necessary to produce hereunder the provisions of the following Sections of the Companies Act, 2013; "252. Appeal to Tribunal___(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248, may file an appeal in the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Registrar and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the removal of the name of the company from the register of companies is not justified in view of the absence of any of the grounds on which the order was passed by the Registrar, it may order restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies; Provided that before passing any order under this section, the Tribunal shall give a reasonable opportunity of making representations and of being heard to the Registrar, the company and all the persons concerned; Provided further that if the Registrar is satisfied, that the name of the company has been struck off from the register of companies either inadvertently or on basis of incorrect information furnished by the company or its directors, which requires restoration in the register of companies, he may within a period of three years from the date of passing of the order dissolving the company under section 248, file an application before the Tribunal seeking restoration of name of such company." "252 (3) If a company, or any member or creditor or workmen thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under subsection (5) of section 248 may, if satisfied that the company was at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies, order the name of the company to be restored to the register of companies, and the Tribunal may, by the order, give such other directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies." A perusal of Section 252(1) , shows, "any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248, may file an appeal in the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Registrar". The words "any person" obviously include a Director of the Company. Whereas the provisions of Section 252(3) provides that a Member can file an Application before the Tribunal for restoration of the name of the Company. 3.1. In the case on hand, the IA No. 399 of 2017 is filed by the Director who was disqualified by the Respondent ROC in the capacity of a Member of the Company by virtue of the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Act seeking for restoration of the name of the Company.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.