2026 (4) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 17.08.2023 passed in IA (Comp Act) No.204/2022 in CP No.119/ND/2022. The impugned order is passed on IA No.204/2022, challenging maintainability. The main issue raised in the Company Petition is qua jurisdiction of the Ld. NCLT to deal with such company petition. 2. The Ld. NCLT disposed of the IA No.204/2022 as follows:- 4. Analysis and Findings: i. We have heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both parties from time to time and also perused the documents on record. ii. We find it relevant to mention that the Disability of foreign companies to file suits and maintain actions in India w.r.t. to Section 599 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Section 393 of the Companies Act, 2013) creates only partial disability for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ute any legal proceedings in respect of any contract, dealings or transactions. This disqualification will continue till the company makes good the default. iii. We observed that when the matter was taken for maintainability of this application, the Applicants have also not satisfied/ failed to prove this Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the Applicants to file this application vide documentary evidence. iv. However, even on merits, we find that the present Application filed by the Applicants suffers from gross infirmities and the Applicants have miserably failed to satisfy this Tribunal on the maintainability of the main Company Petition i.e., CP-119(ND)/2022. v. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Applican....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such the exercise of jurisdiction was wholly illegal. 5. It was argued Section 379 of the Companies Act, 2013 is applicable only to the foreign companies where 50% share capital is held by Indian persons, entities or companies and as such the appellant donot fall within the ambit of Section 379 of the Act. We have perused the impugned order. This argument of Section 379 has since been rejected by the Ld.NCLT on the premise of Section 393 of the Companies Act, 2013. 6. Now the issue raised before us as to if the appellants are doing any business in India or not. The learned counsel for the appellant submits the appellants companies are not doing any business in India and neither it has any place of business in India. However, during th....