January 25, 2012
The trial court set aside the order issued by ROC for striking of the Company under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that an eviction suit was pending against the company and the striking of the company would abate the suit. The order of the trial court was not tenable. Decided on 15/06/2011 Brief facts:
- The appellant before the court was the landlord, who was contesting a suit filed by the company in order to protect its possession as a tenant of the property in question.
- This appeal was against the judgment and/or order dated 1st December, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in a proceeding where the appellant was not a party.
- By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge had set aside the order of the Registrar of Companies for striking off the name of the company from their register under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.
- It was contended that the order of the learned Trial Judge had seriously affected the company as the order helped the company to get back its life and as a result, the benefit derived due to de-registration from the register of the companies was being taken away. Learned advocate for the appellant, contended that the effect of de-registration was dissolution of the company by virtue of Section 560(6).
- The appellant failed to accept the contention that because of the dissolution of the company the suit filed by the company would abate and the suit would automatically stand perished.
- After dissolution by operation of the law under the provisions of Section 560(5), the follow up action was to be taken by the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator would take possession and automatically all the right, title and interest would be devolved upon the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator should be entitled to proceed with the suit with the leave of the Company Court under Section 446.
- In these circumstances, the company would not stand to suffer anything else if the suit was proceeded with either by the company or by the Official Liquidator. Accordingly, as there was no merit in this appeal, the same was dismissed without any order as to costs.