https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759803 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. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:20:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759803 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759803