Explore the depth of legal analysis in a recent court case focusing on the challenge against the Registrar’s striking off order. The court’s thorough examination of company law and the requirements for directorship sheds light on the complexities involved in such matters. Stay tuned to unravel the nuances of the legal system at play in this intriguing case.
Facts
- DIN NO. 3 for Nirendranath Kar, Dipali Chowdhury, and Babulal Banerjee filed online under the digital signature of Nirendranath Kar.
- No Form 32 filed showing the appointment of the three individuals as directors with the Registrar of Companies West Bengal (ROC, WB).
- The Single Judge allowed the application on October 6, 2010, after finding that procedure under Section 560 of the Act 1956 was not followed before striking off the Company’s name from the RoC register.
- The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order on March 22, 2011, and remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for determination in accordance with the law.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the name of the Company was struck off in 2006 and the paid-up share capital is reduced to Rs. 7000 as per the last balance sheet of 2003.
- Under Section 3 of the Act 1956, such companies are deemed defunct.
- Sixteen years have passed since the date of striking off the name of the Company in 2006.
- There is no justification to restore the name of the Company at this stage, especially considering that the Company has had no operations throughout.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- The appellant’s documents including DIN forms obtained in 2008 were disputed by the respondents.
- The appellant’s claim of being a Director was not reflected in the records before the strike-off in 2006.
- Filing of DIN 3 form by a person does not automatically establish directorship; Form 32 is required for corroboration.
- Names of Nirendranath Kar, Dipali Chowdhury, and Babulal Banerjee not evident as Directors due to absence of Form No 32 filing.
- Bank issued a no dues certificate for releasing Company’s assets after name struck off in 2006.
- Appellant lacks locus standi as he is not a Company, member, or creditor to challenge Registrar’s striking off order.
- Division Bench of High Court relied on admitted records showing the absence of respondent no.1’s nexus with the company before strike-off.
- Dispute regarding respondent no.1’s directorship claimed since 1998 to be resolved in a suitable forum; Section 560 does not grant power to adjudicate such disputes.
- Appellant’s belated plea for restoration of the Company name deemed premature pending resolution of his status by a competent civil court or forum.
- Last balance sheet indicates Company as defunct with a paid-up share capital of Rs.7,000 in 2002-2003.
- Additional documents submitted by the appellant post the High Court proceedings were not considered during the initial proceedings.
- The Division Bench of the High Court relied on the facts presented in the RoC’s affidavit to determine the appellant’s standing in challenging the Registrar’s order.
- It is challenging to consider the appellant as one of the Directors of the Company based on the documents provided by the appellant.
- After reviewing the available evidence and the Division Bench’s findings, there is no justification for intervention.
Decision
- Pending application(s) shall be disposed of.
- The appeal has failed and is dismissed.
- No costs are awarded in the case.
Case Title: NIRENDRA NATH KAR Vs. GOPAL NAVIN BHAI DAVE (2022 INSC 1039)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004448-004448 / 2015
