TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, for rejection of plaint came to be dismissed by the Court below. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the materials available on record. The respondents have been served with notice and their names have also been printed in the cause list. There is no appearance either in person or through counsel. 3. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in OS.No.2680 of 2021, seeking for the following reliefs: a) Declaration, declaring that the Notice of Termination dated 05.02.2005 issued by the 1st Defendant through its Counsel by terminating the MOU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of the same, it was contended that the plaintiff Company cannot prosecute this suit since they have not sought for any relief for recovery of money from the defendants. 5. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that in the absence of any document to prove that the plaintiff Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies, the plaint cannot be rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present CRP has been filed before this Court. 6. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent/plaintiff which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka can maintain the present suit in the absence of any relief seeking for recovery of money. 7. It is clear from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt for the purpose of realising the amount due and payable to the Company, the Company cannot proceed further with the proceedings. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rajendras properties (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., and Others .v. Ashok Bansal and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online Delhi 4971. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: 27. Another important aspect to be noted by this Court is that name of appellant no.1 has been struck off from the Register of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 vide order dated 20th November, 2019. Though the appeal on behalf of appellant no.1 is pending before the NCLT since the year 2021, yet despite lapse of reasonable time the name of appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are clearly distinguishable and do not assist appellants in any manner. The judgments of Madras High Court pertain to cases wherein the dissolved company had filed suits for recovery of amounts due to the company, which is not the case in the present proceedings. 30. Similarly, the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs M/s Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal no. 2922/2019 2922/2019, does not come to the assistance of appellants in any manner. The said case deals with the claim of Income Tax Department wherein the Income Tax Department had filed an appeal before Rajasthan High Court against a company. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the name of the company had been struck off fr....