TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1.1 Since the applicant has been heard on merits, the present application has become infructuous. It accordingly stands disposed of. Co. Pet. 200/2011 1.2 Present petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking restoration of respondent No. 2 company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. 2. Both the petitioners claim to have worked as consultants to the respondent No. 2 company. In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioners have not been paid their outstanding salaries amounting to Rs. 6,54,000/-. 3. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for petitioners has drawn the attention of this Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not only from the arbitral tribunal, but also from the High Court in OMP No. 359/2006, OMP No. 65/2008 and Ex. P. No. 334/2010. 7. Mr. Sibal states that the petitioners are colluding with the respondent No. 2 company inasmuch as the petitioners have filed the Foreign Award and other documents which could only be in the possession of the respondent No. 2 company. 8. Mr. Sibal also submits that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition as they have not produced any material to show that petitioners had ever claimed their debt from the respondent No. 2 company. 9. Mr. Sibal further submits that the present petition is barred on the ground of res judicata inasmuch as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudershan Kumar Misra vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany to be restored to the register; and the [Tribunal] may, by the order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off." 13. From a perusal of the said Section, it is apparent that this Court on an application filed either by the company or by any shareholder or by a creditor can restore the company, provided it is carrying on business or if this Court is convinced that it is 'just' to restore the company. 14. Keeping in view the explicit language of Section 560(6) of the Act, this Court is of the view that it must exercise its discretion to restore a company, after looking at al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g restoration so as to penalize a particular applicant or in a possibly futile attempt to safeguard the special interests of a single or limited class of affected persons. It would need a strong case to justify a refusal on these grounds...............(Page 477) [Emphasis supplied] 15. Further in the opinion of this Court, the expression 'just' would mean that it is fair and prudent from a commercial point of view to restore the company. The Court has to examine the concept of 'justness' not exclusively from the prospective of a creditor or a shareholder or a debtor, but from the prospective of the society as a whole. Once this Court is convinced that it is just to restore the company, then to refuse the relief because some thirty par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and payable to them by the respondent No. 2 company. In the Balance Sheet annexed with the petition, the current liabilities and provisions are also shown. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by respondent No. 2 company despite service. It is pertinent to mention that though this Court is not adjudicating upon the claim of the petitioners on merits, but it has referred to the aforesaid facts only to show that there is some material on record to show that the petitioners are alleged creditors of the respondent No. 2 company. 20. Further in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners certainly have a locus standi to maintain the present petition as according to Section 560(6) of the Act, a petition can be filed by any creditor. 21....