NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 220, 248(1), 248(2), 248(4), 252(1), 252(3), 262 COMPANIES ACT, 2013

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Bara Machines Private Limted Vs. Registrar Of Companies, Gujarat, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0005

NCLT allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant  under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, against the order of Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as 'ROC'), Gujarat, whereby and where-under the ROC, Gujarat pleased to struck off the name of the Company from the Register maintained for live Companies. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that in this case, the Appellant stated that no Notice has been served on him and/or the Company, whereas, the ROC, Gujarat contended that such Notice was duly served to him. It is the assertive statement of the ROC, Gujarat in his reply, that Notice under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 was duly sent before removing the name of the Company from the Register maintained by it. Obviously, it was for ROC, Gujarat to prove this fact of service of notice upon the Appellant and his Company before removing the name of the Company from the record. We note that the ROC, Gujarat did not produce on record even copy of the Notice alongwith proof of service of Notice upon the Appellant and / or the Company. The ROC, Gujarat did not produce on record Gazette Notification of such Notice as contemplated under Section 248(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 [" (4) A notice issued under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner and also in the Official Gazette for the information of the general public". It is not disputed that the name of the Appellant's Company has been removed from the Register by the ROC, Gujarat without sending Notice to him U/s 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, hence, we hold the action of ROC, Gujarat is honest in the eyes of law and the appeal succeeded on the ground alone.

Comments

  1. Rockpoint Legal Funding – Fast and Reliable Pre-Settlement Funding SolutionsDecember 16, 2025 at 11:08 PM

    NCLT’s decision to allow the appeal under Section 252(1) is a crucial win for the Appellant, reversing ROC Gujarat’s strike-off order. Employment Law Lawsuit Loans can provide vital support to businesses navigating such corporate legal challenges efficiently.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 248, 248(1), 248(4), 252(3), 455 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Ambrish Gunvantrai Dave, Director Of Euthenics Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar Of Companies, Gujarat, (2020) 08 NCLT CK 0068 NCLT allowed the appeal filed by the applicant, under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the struck off company. While allowing the appeal NCLT held that it is noted that company has failed to file returns for three Financial Years which prompted ROC, (Dadra & Nagar Haveli) Gujarat to strike off the name of such company from its Register of Companies. No plausible explanation has been given for such failure. Although, it has been claimed that notice u...
Read more

NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 3, 3(10), 3(11), 3(23), 5, 5(7), 5(8), 5(20), 5(21), 7, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 9 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016, RULE 5(2), 6 OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY) RULES, 2016 AND SECTION 2(Z), 2(ZN) OF THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Ashok Agarwal Vs. Amitex Polymers Private Limited, (2020) 06 NCLT CK 0040 NCLT dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity 'code') read with Rules 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority), 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor. While dismissing the petition NCLT held that we would like to refer the latest decision of Hon'ble NCLAT passed in the matter of Digamber Bhondwe Vs. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited in which Hon...
Read more