TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Company cannot be considered dead after compliance with NCLAT conditions, suit dismissal application lacks merit under Companies Act 2013 Sections 248, 250</h1> <h3>M/s DURGA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus M/s SONAL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS</h3> Delhi HC permitted withdrawal of application by substituted legal representatives of deceased defendant to file written statement with liberty as prayed. ... Seeking permission to withdraw application - Application on behalf of the substituted LRs of Defenant No. 3, to file a Written Statement - absolute new defence is sought to be taken by filing a Written Statement by the Defendants who have stepped into the shoes of the deceased Defendant - HELD THAT:- The application is permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. Seeking dismissal of the Suit as infructuous - Section 248 read with Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Order XXII Rule 8 CPC - HELD THAT:- At present, the Company has been made active to enable the filing of annual returns - the conditions imposed by the NCLAT stand complied with. At this stage, it cannot be said that the Company is dead and the Suit stand abated - application is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Issues:1. Application for filing a Written Statement by substituted LRs of Defendant No. 3.2. Application seeking dismissal of the Suit as infructuous under Companies Act, 2013 and CPC.3. Dismissal of the application under Order XXII Rule 8 CPC due to non-compliance by the plaintiff.Issue 1: Application for Written Statement by LRs of Defendant No. 3The application was filed by the substituted LRs of Defendant No. 3 to file a Written Statement, objected by the plaintiff citing a new defense being introduced. The LRs claimed discovering a fraud committed on the Defendants. Eventually, the application was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh amendment application.Issue 2: Application seeking dismissal of the SuitAn application under Companies Act, 2013 and Order XXII Rule 8 CPC was filed by Defendant No. 1 to dismiss the Suit as infructuous. The plaintiff company's non-compliance with annual account filings raised concerns about its business operations. The NCLAT had directed the plaintiff to comply with various conditions for restoration, including depositing costs and filing annual returns. The plaintiff refuted the application's claims, asserting compliance with NCLAT's directions, including depositing costs and preparing annual returns.Issue 3: Dismissal of the application under Order XXII Rule 8 CPCThe plaintiff contended that the application was mala fide, aiming to assert the company's non-existence post-striking off its name from ROC records. The plaintiff argued that it had fulfilled NCLAT's restoration conditions, including depositing costs and preparing annual returns. The NCLAT's conditions were found to be complied with, indicating the company's active status for filing annual returns. Consequently, the application was dismissed as without merit, and the Suit was not abated based on the compliance with NCLAT's directives.This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment's key issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the court's decision based on compliance with statutory requirements and previous judicial precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
