Petitioners authorized to report fraudulent transactions to authorities for investigation, corrective action if needed.

The court allowed the petitioners to file complaints regarding fraudulent transactions by revived shell companies to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and SEBI for investigation. The authorities were directed to take corrective action if fraudulent activities were found. No costs were awarded, and certified copies of the judgment would be provided to the parties upon request.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Registrar of Companies (ROC) is empowered to enquire into antecedents and post-striking-off activities of companies struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. Whether the ROC's duty under Rule 25B of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, to check registered offices empowers the ROC to carry out fact-finding investigations into functioning of struck-off companies.

3. Whether aggrieved parties must challenge revival orders of struck-off companies under Section 252 (and appeal mechanisms) rather than seek ROC intervention or alternative routes.

4. The respective roles and obligations of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in investigating alleged fraudulent share transactions conducted by struck-off or revived shell companies.

5. Whether the Court may direct complainants to file fresh complaints to specified authorities and order those authorities to enquire and investigate, and the limits of such directions.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: ROC's power to enquire into antecedents and post-striking-off activities (Section 248 and Section 250)

Legal framework: Section 248(1)-(5) permits the ROC, after specified steps, to strike off names of companies not carrying on business; Section 250 provides that a company dissolved under Section 248 ceases to operate save for limited purposes (realization of assets and discharge of liabilities).

Interpretation and reasoning: The statutory scheme confines the ROC's role to enquiring into grounds for striking off and effecting dissolution; there is no express statutory power enabling the ROC to investigate activities of a company after dissolution beyond the narrow exceptions in Section 250. The ROC's competence ends with striking off; post-dissolution activities are not placed within the ROC's continuing investigatory mandate by these provisions.

Precedent treatment: No conflicting precedent was invoked in the judgment; the Court relied on textual construction of Sections 248 and 250.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The ROC is not empowered under Sections 248 and 250 to enquire into or investigate the post-dissolution activities of struck-off companies beyond the limited purposes specified in Section 250.

Conclusion: ROC lacks statutory authority under Sections 248/250 to investigate functioning of struck-off companies de hors their limited post-dissolution status; other forums/authorities must be approached for such inquiries.

Issue 2: Scope of Rule 25B of the 2014 Rules vis-à-vis ROC investigatory powers

Legal framework: Rule 25B of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 requires the ROC to check registered offices of companies.

Interpretation and reasoning: The duty to check registered offices is procedural and administrative; it does not import an investigatory mandate to undertake fact-finding into whether struck-off companies are functioning or transacting business illegally. The checking exercise does not equate to carrying out a substantive inquiry into alleged ongoing operations or fraudulent share dealings.

Precedent treatment: No precedent was cited; the Court relied on purposive reading of the rule against the statutory scheme.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 25B obliges the ROC to inspect registered offices but does not empower the ROC to mount fact-finding investigations into continued functioning of struck-off companies.

Conclusion: ROC's administrative checks under Rule 25B do not convert it into the investigatory agency for allegations of struck-off companies carrying on business; such inquiries lie elsewhere.

Issue 3: Remedy against revival of struck-off companies - Section 252 and appellate routes

Legal framework: Section 252 provides for application to the Tribunal (NCLT) to restore the name of a struck-off company where removal is unjustified; orders of the Tribunal are appealable to the appellate forum (NCLAT).

Interpretation and reasoning: The statutory framework contemplates an aggrieved party preferring a challenge to revival before the statutory adjudicatory forums. The Court rejected the contention that litigants may avoid this route by seeking ROC or other agency intervention; the responsibility to challenge revival rests on the aggrieved party through the prescribed legal remedies.

Precedent treatment: No contrary judicial authority was cited; the reasoning follows statutory appeal provision.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Challenges to revival of struck-off companies lie under Section 252 before the Tribunal and appellate mechanisms; aggrieved parties must pursue those remedies rather than bypass them.

Conclusion: Petitioner must challenge revivals via the Tribunal/Appellate process; repeated appeals are the aggrieved party's remedy and not obviated by seeking ROC action.

Issue 4: Role of SEBI and Ministry of Corporate Affairs in investigating fraudulent share transactions by struck-off/revived shell companies

Legal framework: SEBI is the statutory regulator for securities and is the appropriate authority to enquire into fraudulent and illegal share transactions; the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has obligations to find and punish shell companies, particularly following sensitization from August 18, 2022.

Interpretation and reasoning: Allegations that struck-off or revived shell companies are transacting shares fall squarely within SEBI's regulatory domain (securities fraud) and within the Ministry's mandate to address shell companies. The absence of SEBI as a party in the writ was noted, but the Court preferred enabling complainants to approach those authorities directly rather than impleading SEBI and postponing relief.

Precedent treatment: No precedent was cited; the Court relied on statutory competencies of SEBI and the Ministry.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - SEBI is the appropriate authority to investigate fraudulent share transactions; the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has a duty to act against shell companies. Obiter - Impleading SEBI in the writ would unduly prolong proceedings where direct complaints to SEBI and the Ministry are available.

Conclusion: Complainants should lodge detailed complaints with SEBI and the Ministry; those authorities must enquire and, if allegations are substantiated, initiate investigations and deputize investigating agencies as appropriate.

Issue 5: Court's power to direct filing of fresh complaints and mandate enquiries by competent authorities

Legal framework: The Court's supervisory powers permit directions to public authorities to act within their statutory mandates where justice requires.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given ROC's limited role and SEBI's and the Ministry's competencies, the Court exercised discretion to dispose of the writ by granting liberty to the petitioners to file fresh, detailed complaints with the appropriate authorities and directing those authorities to act on them, hold enquiries, and, if warranted, conduct investigations. The Court balanced the interests of expedition against formal impleadment of SEBI in the writ.

Precedent treatment: No precedent cited; the measure follows principles of judicial supervision and facilitation of statutory enforcement.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court may direct complainants to submit detailed complaints to competent authorities and require those authorities to examine and, if warranted, investigate allegations; such directions are appropriate where statutory schemes assign investigatory roles to those authorities and alternative remedies are available to aggrieved private parties.

Conclusion: The Court granted liberty to lodge fresh complaints with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and SEBI, directed those authorities to enquire and investigate if complaints disclose substance, and declined to order costs; this constituted the operative relief tailored to statutory roles and procedural propriety.

---