Court recalls order, restores petition under Companies Act. Jurisdiction upheld for order recall. False info led to fraudulent order.

The High Court allowed the application in C.A. 243 of 2014, recalling the order dated August 12, 2013, in C.P. 537 of 2013 and restoring Company Petition No. 537 of 2013 to its original file and number. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain an application for recalling an order under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, rejecting the argument that such matters should be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal. It found that the original application for restoration was based on false information, leading to the order being obtained through suppression of material facts and fraud.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recording the death of a petitioner.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application for recalling an order under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act.
3. Suppression of material facts and fraud on the Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recording the death of a petitioner:
In C.A. 780 of 2016, the application was for recording the death of one Basant Kumar Chirimar, Petitioner No. 2, who died on January 8, 2016, during the pendency of the application. The Court, after reviewing the application, found no grounds to disallow the prayer and thus allowed the application, ordering in terms of prayer A to E of the Judges Summons.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application for recalling an order under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act:
In C.A. 243 of 2014, the primary issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for recalling an order passed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the company was struck off from the register, and an application under Section 560(6) was filed for restoration. The application was initially allowed, but a subsequent application was filed for recalling the order. The preliminary objection was raised that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to Rule 3 of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, which mandates the transfer of proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) except those reserved for orders.

The Court examined Rule 3, which states that all proceedings, except those relating to winding up, shall be transferred to NCLT. The proviso exempts proceedings reserved for orders. The Court interpreted "proceeding" to include all steps in a judicial action and concluded that the application for recalling an order is not covered under Rule 3. Therefore, the High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain the application for recalling the order.

3. Suppression of material facts and fraud on the Court:
The merit of the application for recalling the order was examined next. The original application for restoration of the company’s name claimed that the company was active but failed to file annual returns due to the accountant's negligence. However, the present applicants disclosed that the company had applied for voluntary winding up under the Easy Exit Scheme (EES)-2011 and declared it inoperative for three years, with no pending litigation, which was false as there was a pending complaint case. The Court found that there was deliberate suppression of these facts in the original petition.

The Court cited a similar case where it was held that a company which had applied for its name to be struck off could not later apply under Section 560(6) unless it demonstrated an obvious mistake shortly after the name was struck off. The Court concluded that the order was obtained by suppressing material facts and practicing fraud.

Conclusion:
The application in C.A. 243 of 2014 was allowed, the order dated August 12, 2013, in C.P. 537 of 2013 was recalled, and the Company Petition No. 537 of 2013 was restored to its original file and number.

---