Clarification on Winding Up Section under Companies Act post-amendment

The judgment clarified the correct section for winding up under the Companies Act, emphasizing the applicability of Section 271(1)(e) post-amendment. It addressed the company's strike-off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-compliance, leading to loss of substratum. The court discussed the lack of eligibility for the summary procedure under Section 360 and highlighted the need for company restoration before seeking a winding up order. Emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies, the court dismissed the petition as the company was not listed in the Register of Companies, thus not entitled to file a winding up petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of the correct section for winding up under the Companies Act.
2. Company struck off by Registrar of Companies due to non-compliance.
3. Allegation of loss of substratum and failure to achieve main object.
4. Invocation of summary procedure under Section 360 of the Companies Act.
5. Objection by Registrar of Companies regarding maintainability of winding up petition.
6. Availability of alternative remedies before seeking winding up order.
7. Entitlement to file a winding up petition when the company's name is struck off.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the correct section applicable for winding up under the Companies Act. It clarifies that post the amendment, Section 271(1)(e) is to be applied instead of Section 271(1)(g) for cases filed after 15.11.2016.

2. The judgment discusses the company being struck off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, leading to the loss of substratum and failure to achieve the main object, which are grounds for winding up.

3. It examines the invocation of the summary procedure under Section 360 of the Companies Act, highlighting that for such a procedure, the company must belong to a class prescribed by the Central Government, which was not applicable in this case.

4. The objection raised by the Registrar of Companies regarding the maintainability of the winding up petition is addressed, emphasizing that the company's restoration should have been sought before approaching the Tribunal.

5. The judgment delves into the availability of alternative remedies before seeking a winding up order, pointing out that the petitioners unreasonably skipped the restoration process under Section 252(1) or 252(3) to directly seek a winding up order.

6. It concludes by stating that a company not listed in the Register of Companies is not entitled to file a winding up petition, leading to the dismissal of the petition without any costs being awarded.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the legal reasoning applied in the decision-making process.

---