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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the application for revival, relisting, and acceptance of delayed statutory returns was maintainable before the High Court after the company's name had been struck off under the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the petitioner's remedy lay before the National Company Law Tribunal for restoration of the company's name to the register of companies.
Issue (i): Whether the application for revival, relisting, and acceptance of delayed statutory returns was maintainable before the High Court after the company's name had been struck off under the Companies Act, 2013.
Analysis: The application was sought in the context of a restoration proceeding originally moved under the repealed regime, but the later striking off of the company's name occurred under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court noted the effect of Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013, which repeals the earlier enactment but preserves actions taken under it to the extent they are not inconsistent with the new law. The Court further observed that the striking-off and restoration framework under the new Act provides the operative remedy for a company whose name has been removed from the register.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable before the High Court.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's remedy lay before the National Company Law Tribunal for restoration of the company's name to the register of companies.
Analysis: The Court held that, in the present statutory regime, the appropriate forum for restoration of a struck-off company is the National Company Law Tribunal. The earlier and later provisions dealing with striking off were treated as substantially corresponding, but the operative remedy under the Companies Act, 2013 lies with the Tribunal. The High Court therefore declined to grant the requested relief and left the petitioner free to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The petitioner's remedy lay before the National Company Law Tribunal, not the High Court.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the restoration request in its writ/company jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy before the National Company Law Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a company's name has been struck off under the Companies Act, 2013, the restoration remedy is to be pursued before the National Company Law Tribunal, and not by an independent application before the High Court.
TaxTMI 
