Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Company Name Striking Off Due to Lack of Locus Standi. Appellant's Claim of Directorship Not Established as per Registrar's Records.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was directed against a judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, which set aside a prior order by a Single Judge restoring the name of Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Private Limited. The company was initially incorporated as Basanti Cotton Mills Private Limited, with its name changed in 2000. The Registrar of Companies struck off the company's name in 2006 due to inactivity, as the last annual return was filed for the financial year 2002-2003. The appellant, claiming to be a director, filed a complaint under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, which was initially allowed by the Single Judge. However, the Division Bench later ruled that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the striking off, as he was not a member or creditor of the company. The court emphasized reliance on the Registrar's records, which did not support the appellant's claim of directorship. The court noted that the company was deemed defunct under Section 3 of the Act due to its low paid-up capital and inactivity for years. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Striking Off Company Name - Locus Standi - Companies Act, 1956, Section 560(5) - The appellant was found to have no locus standi as he was neither a member nor a creditor of the company, thus unable to challenge the Registrar's order. The High Court's reliance on the Registrar's records was upheld, indicating the appellant's status as a director was not established. Held that the appeal was dismissed due to lack of standing (Paras 6-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant had the locus standi to challenge the striking off of the company's name by the Registrar of Companies.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's finding that the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the striking off of the company's name.

Law Points

  • Companies Act
  • 1956
  • Section 560(5)
  • defunct company
  • locus standi
  • striking off company name
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (09) 256

Civil Appeal No. 4448 of 2015

2022-09-29

Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna

Nirendra Nath Kar

Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the High Court's order regarding the striking off of a company's name.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the company's name in the register of the Registrar of Companies.

Filing Reason

Claim of directorship and challenge to the striking off order.

Previous Decisions

The Single Judge initially allowed the restoration, which was later set aside by the Division Bench.

Issues

Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the striking off of the company's name.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued he was a director and thus had standing to challenge the order. The respondents contended that the appellant was not recorded as a director and lacked standing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that only those who are members or creditors of a company have the standing to challenge the Registrar's order of striking off under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant has no locus standi as he is neither a Company nor a member nor creditor. The company is deemed to be a defunct company.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the Division Bench's order setting aside the Single Judge's restoration of the company's name, which followed the Registrar's striking off order.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956: Section 560(5), Section 303
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Delayed Filing of Written Statement in Civil Suit for Damages — Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Held Directory. The court set aside the trial court's refusal to accept the written statement, holding that the provision is directory an...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Central Excise Duty Exemption Case — Clarifies Definition of Tar and Its Distillation Products. The court ruled that products derived from coal tar qualify as 'tar' under the exemption notification, thus exempting the...