Restoration of Struck-off Company: Supreme Court Judgment on Director’s Locus Standi
This Supreme Court case concerns a dispute involving the restoration of a company’s name that had been struck off the register of the Registrar of Companies (RoC) under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant, Nirendranath Kar, claimed to be a director of Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Pvt. Ltd., which had its name struck off the register in 2006 for failing to file annual returns and accounts. The issue at hand was whether the appellant, who was not listed in the company’s official records at the time of striking off, had the locus standi to seek the restoration of the company’s name in the RoC register.
The case revolves around the procedural aspects of striking off a company’s name, the eligibility of a person to challenge such action, and the determination of the rightful directors of a company. It also considers the limits of the jurisdiction of the court in restoring the names of companies that were struck off due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Background of the Dispute
The company, Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Pvt. Ltd., was initially incorporated in 1998 under the Companies Act, 1956. The company’s registration was subsequently struck off by the RoC in January 2006 for non-compliance, specifically the failure to file its annual returns and accounts. The company had ceased to function as a business entity, with its last filings being in 2003. The name was struck off the register after the RoC determined that the company had not been carrying on business or operations for a significant period.
In 2008, Nirendranath Kar filed for the restoration of the company’s name, claiming that he was one of the directors of the company and that the company had been functioning, despite its non-compliance with regulatory requirements. He further claimed that the restoration was necessary for the company to continue its business. However, the RoC maintained that the company had been non-operational and that the appellant’s claim to be a director was not supported by the official records.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appellant’s claim, ruling that the appellant had no locus standi to seek the restoration as he was not a director according to the official records. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision and seeking the restoration of the company’s name on the RoC register.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect, as it failed to consider the appellant’s claim that he was one of the directors of the company. The appellant contended that he had been a director of the company since its inception, and despite the company’s non-compliance with filing requirements, the company had continued operations in some form. The appellant further argued that the striking off of the company’s name from the register was unjust and that it would adversely affect his rights as a director, especially considering that no proper process was followed before striking off the company’s name.
The appellant’s counsel also emphasized that the issue of locus standi should not preclude the restoration of the company’s name, as the appellant had a legitimate interest in seeing the company revived. The appellant requested that the Court look into the facts and legal principles that would justify the restoration of the company’s name, even if the official records did not list him as a director.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, including the RoC and other parties involved, argued that the company’s name had been struck off in accordance with the law, as the company had failed to comply with the statutory filing requirements. The respondents maintained that the company had been non-operational and that the appellant’s claim of being a director was not substantiated by the company’s official records. The respondents contended that the appellant had no legitimate claim to the restoration of the company’s name, as he was not a recognized director in the records of the RoC at the time of the striking off.
The respondents further argued that the appellant’s claim was based on documents filed after the striking off, which could not be relied upon to establish his position as a director. They also pointed out that under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, the RoC had the discretion to strike off the name of a company that had ceased operations, and the appellant’s plea for restoration lacked legal merit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court carefully considered the facts of the case and the legal arguments presented by both parties. The Court acknowledged that the appellant had not been listed as a director in the official records of the company at the time of its striking off. However, the Court noted that the issue of locus standi was not necessarily limited to the records of the RoC, as the appellant had claimed to be a director from the beginning of the company’s existence.
The Court referred to the procedural safeguards under the Companies Act, 1956, which allow for the restoration of a company’s name if it was struck off due to non-compliance. The Court noted that while the RoC had the authority to strike off the name of a company, this action could be challenged by interested parties who could demonstrate a legitimate interest in the company’s affairs. The Court held that the appellant, as a claimed director, had a sufficient interest in the case to pursue the restoration petition, even if his name did not appear in the official records.
The Court also emphasized that the appellant’s claim could not be dismissed solely on the basis of his name not appearing in the records. The Court observed that the appellant had produced documents to support his claim, which raised legitimate questions regarding the company’s operational status and the appellant’s involvement. In light of this, the Court ruled that the matter required further examination to determine the appellant’s role and whether the company’s restoration was warranted.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision. The Court directed that the name of Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Pvt. Ltd. be restored to the register of the RoC. The Court ordered the RoC to take necessary steps to reinstate the company and ensure that the appellant’s claim as a director was examined in accordance with the law. The Court further directed that the respondents provide appropriate documentation to support the appellant’s claim and facilitate the restoration process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the rights of directors and stakeholders are protected, even in cases where company records are incomplete or unclear. The judgment affirms the principle that a person claiming to be a director has the right to seek restoration of the company’s name if they can provide sufficient evidence of their involvement. The Court’s ruling also underscores the flexibility of the law in allowing for the correction of administrative oversights that may affect the legitimate interests of individuals.
Petitioner Name: Nirendranath Kar.Respondent Name: Gopal Navin Bhai Dave & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.Place Of Incident: Kolkata, West Bengal.Judgment Date: 29-09-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: nirendranath-kar-vs-gopal-navin-bhai-dav-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-09-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Company Law
See all petitions in Corporate Governance
See all petitions in Shareholder Disputes
See all petitions in Corporate Compliance
See all petitions in Bankruptcy and Insolvency
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
