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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a plaintiff in damages proceedings against a company, whose action was rendered ineffective after the company was struck off the register, is a "creditor" entitled to seek restoration of the company's name under section 353(6) of the Companies Act, 1948.
Analysis: The statutory context showed that section 353(6) used the bare word "creditor" in a grievance-based remedy, unlike section 224(1), which expressly extended winding-up applications to actual, contingent, and prospective creditors. Although alternative routes under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act, 1930 and section 352 of the Companies Act, 1948 were unavailable, the wording and purpose of section 353(6) indicated that "creditor" should not be confined to debts already fixed and ascertained. Earlier authorities, though not directly in point, supported a liberal approach to the concept of creditor where claims were contingent or unliquidated but had real pecuniary substance.
Conclusion: The word "creditor" was held wide enough to include the petitioner, and the petition for restoration succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 353(6) of the Companies Act, 1948, "creditor" is to be construed broadly so as to include a person with a contingent or prospective pecuniary claim who is aggrieved by the company's removal from the register.