Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rajendra Suresh Bhumkar Director Of ... vs Registrar Of Companies, Pune

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal8 August 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a application for restoration of a struck-off company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been allowed on the ground that the applicant has made out a good case for restoration, there is no occasion for the Tribunal to impose costs on the applicant, and a cost order so imposed is liable to be set aside.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHICompany Appeal(AT) No. 164 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Rajendra Suresh Bhumkar ...Appellant Director of Arihant Realties Pvt. Ltd.

Vs

Registrar of Companies, Pune ....Respondent

Present:

For Appellant: Ms. Deeplaxmi S. Matwankar, Advocate.

ORDER

08.08.2018 An application was preferred by the Appellant under Section

252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the Company which has been

allowed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter

referred to as 'Tribunal') by impugned order dated 26th March, 2018. However,

while allowing the prayer a cost of Rs. Five lakhs has been imposed on the

Appellant. The grievance of the Appellant is limited to the cost imposed on him.

Notice was issued on Respondent- Registrar of Companies, Pune but, in

spite of notice nobody has appeared.

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant and perused the

record. Taking into consideration of the fact that the Appellant made out a good

case for restoration of the name of the Company the application under Section

252 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been allowed. In such circumstances, we

Company Appeal (AT) No. 164 of 2018 Page 1 of 2 are of the opinion that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to impose cost

on the Appellant.

We accordingly set aside the part of the order dated 26th March, 2018, so

far it relates to imposition of cost of Rs. Five lakhs on the Appellant. Rest part

of the order dated 26th March, 2018 is affirmed. Appeal is allowed. No cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)

Akc/Sk

Company Appeal (AT) No. 164 of 2018 Page 2 of 2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free