Sushil Kukreja vs Registrar Of Companies Chhattisgarh
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 46 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to restore a struck-off company, where the restoration prayer was made in a second appeal following an earlier dismissed petition for the same relief without disclosure of that earlier petition; the Tribunal held that the second appeal for restoration of the same company, filed without disclosing the earlier petition, does not warrant interference with the order refusing restoration. Adverse comments or remarks recorded by a tribunal against a company's secretary, counsel or authorised representative in the course of deciding an appeal are not to be taken note of at any subsequent stage of proceedings, and the Tribunal so directed in disposing of the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) No. 46 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Sushil kukreja ...Appellant Versus Registrar of Companies, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Parasrampuria, PCS Mr. Rohit Parasrampuria, PCA For Respondent : Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, Advocate for ROC.
ORDER
11.07.2023: Heard Mr. Rahul Parasrampuria, Ld. PCS who has appeared
on behalf of the Appellant/major shareholder of the Company which was
struck off by order dated 12.07.2017 by the Registrar of Company while
exercising power under Section 248 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the
Companies Act, 2013 against an order dated 09.11.2021. By the said order
while dismissing the appeal filed under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act,
2013, Ld. NCLT has also recorded some adverse comment against Mr. Rahul
Parasrampuria, Ld. PCS. On examination of the impugned order it is evident
that earlier also an appeal was filed for restoration of the same company which
was struck off on 12.07.2017, vide Petition No. 239/CB/2020 which stood
dismissed on 28.12.2020. On examination of the impugned order it is evident
that Ld. NCLT was primarily dissatisfied with the approach of filing of the
second appeal for restoration of the same company and also had noticed
regarding none disclosure of the earlier petition. -2-
On examination of the impugned order we do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order particularly regarding the prayer for
restoration of the company. However, we are of the opinion that for just
decision in the matter it would be appropriate to record that any adverse
comment or remark recorded against the Company
Secretary/Counsel/authorized representative may not be taken note at any
subsequent stage.
With above observation, the appeal stands disposed of.
This order is passed in the presence of Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, Ld.
Counsel for ROC/Respondent.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
sr/gc
Company Appeal (AT) No. 46 of 2022
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