TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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 appellants, being debtors of the company, had locus standi as "persons aggrieved" or "persons concerned" to intervene in proceedings for restoration of the company's name under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. (ii) Whether the appeal against the order restoring the company's name was maintainable after rejection of the intervention application.
Issue (i): Whether the appellants, being debtors of the company, had locus standi as "persons aggrieved" or "persons concerned" to intervene in proceedings for restoration of the company's name under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 confines the right to question removal of a company's name, and the corresponding hearing before restoration, to the company, its members, creditors, workmen and other stakeholders whose legal interests are directly affected. A debtor does not suffer legal prejudice by restoration of the company's name; on the contrary, striking off may benefit such a person. The appellants had no enforceable legal right that was jeopardized by the restoration proceedings, and the attempt to intervene was found to be aimed at stalling the lawful process and avoiding liability already determined against them.
Conclusion: The appellants had no locus standi to intervene and were neither "persons aggrieved" nor "persons concerned" for the purpose of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Issue (ii): Whether the appeal against the order restoring the company's name was maintainable after rejection of the intervention application.
Analysis: Since the appellants were not within the category of persons entitled to challenge the removal or restoration of the company's name under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, and were merely debtors with no legal grievance against the restoration, the appeal against the restoration order could not be maintained. The rejection of the intervention application also reinforced the absence of any right to be heard on the merits of restoration.
Conclusion: The appeal against the restoration order was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the restoration proceedings failed, the intervention claim was rejected for want of locus, and the order restoring the company's name remained undisturbed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Only a person whose legal rights are directly affected by striking off or restoration of a company's name can invoke Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 as an aggrieved person or person concerned; a debtor lacking such legal injury has no locus standi to intervene or maintain an appeal.
TaxTMI 
