Appellant's Will Gives Right to File Winding-Up Appeal; NCLT Can Proceed Despite Company's Name Removal

The NCLAT held that the appellant, as the sole beneficiary under the deceased's Will, had the competency to file the appeal for winding up the company. Additionally, the NCLT was empowered to proceed with the winding-up petition despite the company's name being struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The impugned order dismissing the petition was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the NCLT for a fresh decision based on merit and legal considerations. No costs were awarded, and the parties were directed to appear before the NCLT for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
- Competency of the appellant to file the appeal on behalf of the deceased.
- Whether NCLT can proceed with a winding-up petition after the company's name has been struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Competency of the Appellant:
The appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant against the order dismissing the petition for winding up the company. The Respondents raised objections regarding the competency of the appellant to file the appeal. However, it was established that the appellant's husband was the sole beneficiary as per the Will, and he had the right to file the appeal on behalf of the deceased. The objection regarding the competency of the appeal was dismissed.

Proceeding with Winding-Up Petition after Company Name Removal:
The central issue was whether the NCLT could proceed with a winding-up petition after the company's name had been struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The relevant provision, Section 248(8), explicitly states that the Tribunal's power to wind up a company is not affected even if the company's name has been struck off the register of companies. Therefore, the NCLT had the authority to proceed with the winding-up petition even after the removal of the company's name from the register. This interpretation was supported by a previous judgment in a similar case.

Judgment:
The NCLAT found that the order dismissing the winding-up petition was not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the NCLT, New Delhi for a fresh decision on the winding-up petition based on merit and in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on a specified date. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---