TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the company was liable to be wound up on the grounds under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the petition remained maintainable after the company's name had been struck off from the register under the Companies Act, 2013.
Issue (i): Whether the company was liable to be wound up on the grounds under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The record showed that the company had not commenced business, had not held statutory meetings, had failed to file the requisite returns and accounts, and had only two shareholders/directors, one of whom had died. These facts attracted the statutory grounds corresponding to non-commencement of business, failure to hold statutory meetings, reduction of members below the minimum required for a private company, and default in filing balance-sheet, profit and loss account or annual returns.
Conclusion: The company was held liable to be wound up under section 433(b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Companies Act, 1956, in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the petition remained maintainable after the company's name had been struck off from the register under the Companies Act, 2013.
Analysis: The company's name had been struck off under section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, but the statutory framework preserved the right to pursue winding up notwithstanding such striking off. The petition was therefore not rendered non-maintainable by the strike-off entry.
Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable despite the strike-off, in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The company was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator was appointed to take charge of its assets and conduct the winding up in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A company's striking off from the register does not by itself bar winding-up proceedings, and proven defaults under the statutory grounds for winding up justify an order of winding up.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
