Striking off of company name does not bar pending recovery suit or justify rejection of plaint under CPC.

Striking off a company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not by itself bar a pending civil suit or justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The statutory scheme preserves company assets for discharge of liabilities, continues the liability of directors, managers and members, and keeps the company in existence for realising amounts due and paying liabilities under Section 250. The expression "amount due" was construed in its ordinary sense and was not limited to an admitted or crystallised debt. Accordingly, a struck-off company may pursue recovery of its dues, and an existing suit is not invalidated merely because the company has been removed from the register.

---

---

Issues: Whether the striking off of a company's name from the register of companies under the Companies Act, 2013 renders a pending civil suit filed by that company non-maintainable and justifies rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for removal of a company's name from the register, but sub-section (6) preserves the availability of the company's assets for discharge of liabilities, sub-section (7) continues the liability of directors, managers and members, and Section 250 preserves the company's existence for the limited purpose of realising amounts due to it and for payment or discharge of its liabilities or obligations. The expression "amount due" was construed in its ordinary and grammatical sense, and was held not to be confined to an admitted or crystallised debt. On that construction, a struck off company is not barred from pursuing legal remedies for recovery of its dues, and the mere striking off of its name does not invalidate a suit already instituted when the cause of action existed.

Conclusion: The revision was rejected and the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was sustained.

---