Intervention Application Dismissed for Lack of Standing; Company Ordered Restoration in Register

The Tribunal dismissed the Intervention Application by the Applicants, ruling they lacked standing. The company's name was ordered to be restored in the Register of Companies to enable operations and legal compliance, serving public interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Applicants can be treated as "persons concerned" under proviso to Section 252(1)Rs.
2. Whether the Applicants can be treated as "aggrieved persons" by virtue of the orders passed by the Registrar of Companies removing the name of the PetitionerRs.
3. Whether the Applicants have locus standi to agitate before this Tribunal against the PetitionRs.
4. Whether the disqualified directors can file this PetitionRs.
5. Whether it is in the public interest that the Petitioner be restoredRs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Applicants can be treated as "persons concerned" under proviso to Section 252(1)Rs.
The Tribunal clarified that the term "persons concerned" under Section 252(1) refers to individuals or entities with a legitimate interest in the revival of the company, connected to the company either by contractual obligation or other obligations. This includes members, shareholders, directors, creditors, etc., who have a binding interest in the company. The Applicants, in this case, do not meet this criterion as they do not have a legitimate or binding interest in the company.

2. Whether the Applicants can be treated as "aggrieved persons" by virtue of the orders passed by the Registrar of Companies removing the name of the PetitionerRs.
The Tribunal distinguished between "persons concerned" and "aggrieved persons." Aggrieved persons are those who are adversely affected by the Registrar's order and cannot conduct business with the company due to its removal. Statutory authorities with claims against the company can be aggrieved persons but not persons concerned. The Applicants do not qualify as either aggrieved persons or persons concerned, thus lacking the standing to file the present Petition.

3. Whether the Applicants have locus standi to agitate before this Tribunal against the PetitionRs.
Since the Applicants do not satisfy the criteria of being either persons concerned or aggrieved persons, they lack locus standi to challenge the Petition. The Tribunal noted that the Application was misconceived and aimed at creating obstacles for the revival of the company rather than addressing legitimate grievances.

4. Whether the disqualified directors can file this PetitionRs.
The Tribunal found that the person who signed the Petition, despite being a disqualified director, is a major shareholder in the company and thus qualifies as a person concerned. Therefore, the disqualification of the director does not invalidate the Petition, and the contention of the Applicants on this ground was overruled.

5. Whether it is in the public interest that the Petitioner be restoredRs.
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of public interest, noting that a defunct company cannot enforce rights or obligations, which would jeopardize public interest. Restoration of the company allows for the enforcement of statutory duties and legal actions against or by the company. The Tribunal concluded that it is in the public interest to restore the company's name to the Register of Companies.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Intervention Application filed by the Applicants, finding that they lacked locus standi and their objections were not tenable. The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies, subject to compliance with statutory requirements and payment of costs. The restoration allows the company to resume operations and comply with legal obligations, thereby serving the public interest.

---