SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Cal) 275

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
U. N. MANDALs ESTATE PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Matter 265  Of  1958
Decided On : DECEMBER 10, 1958

The Court has the discretion to restore a company to the register after its name has been struck off, but it will only do so if it is satisfied that the company was carrying on business or was in operation at the time its name was struck off, or that it is just that the company should be restored to the register.

Headnote:

COMPANY - Striking off the name of the company from the register - Restoration of the company - Power of the Court - Discretion of the Court - Factors to be considered - Bona vacantia - Property of a dissolved company.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a director of a private company, filed an application under Sections 433 and 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking to wind up the company or to restore its name to the register after it had been struck off by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. The company had not functioned since its incorporation in 1929, had not held any meetings, and had no bank accounts or records. The applicant claimed that the company owned certain properties and had pending proceedings and book debts.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the company had never functioned as a real or regular company, that the properties purportedly transferred to it were actually divided among the members of the family, and that the company had no assets or book debts. The Court also found that the applicant had acquiesced in the management of the company and had not taken any steps to intervene when he felt excluded from its management.

Issues: 1. Whether the company was carrying on business or was in operation at the time its name was struck off the register. 2. Whether there were any pending proceedings or book debts of the company. 3. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to restore the company to the register.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the company was not carrying on business or was in operation at the time its name was struck off the register. The company had not held any meetings, had no bank accounts or records, and had not treated the properties purportedly transferred to it as its own. 2. The Court held that there were no pending proceedings or book debts of the company. The alleged pending proceedings were not for or against the company, and there were no proofs of any book debts owing to the company. 3. The Court held that it would not exercise its discretion to restore the company to the register. The company had not functioned for over 30 years, had no assets or book debts, and the applicant had acquiesced in the management of the company. Restoring the company would be an idle ceremony and would not serve any useful purpose.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application with costs.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by two persons Nagendra Nath Mandal and Biswanath Mandal. The application is made under two specific sections which are described as Sections 433 and 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 433 deals with the circumstances in which the company could be wound up by the Court. Section 560 deals with the power of the Registrar to strike a defunct company off the register and the Court's power either to restore the company or to wind up the company thereafter.

( 2 ) THE applicant Biswanath Mandal has no locus standi. He is neither a registered shareholder nor a member nor a director of the company Rai Saheb U. N. Mandal's Estate Private Ltd. An application for winding up can be made by persons and authorities mentioned in Section 439 of the Companies Act. The applicant Biswanath Mandal does not come within that classification. An application under Section 560 for restoration under Section 560 (6) of the Act can only be made by the company, member or creditor. But the applicant Biswanath Mandal is neither the company nor the member nor the creditor. It follows, therefore, that so far the application is an application by Biswanath Mandal it must be and is dismissed with costs.

( 3 ) THE applicant Nagendra Nath Mandal is a director of this company Rai Saheb U. N. Mandal's Estate Private Ltd. which has been struck off the register by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, This company is a private company. Its members and directors are all relations. Applicant Nagendra is a director and the two other directors who are opposing this application are Manindra and Baidya-nath. Manindra and Baidyanath are the nephews of Nagendra. A genealogical table showing the relationship is set out in the affidavit of Baidyanath and Manindra Nath Mandal affirmed on 24-6-1957. The company was primarily a zemindari company. Its main purpose was to acquire, undertake, zemindaris, putnis, taluks etc. It was incorporated on or about 23-11-1929. Its registered office was at Sanctorea, Burdwan, West Bengal.

( 4 ) THE record of this company is most unpromising. Ever since 1929 when it was incorporated it declared no dividends. It in fact never functioned and held no meetings. In fact no minutes of meetings of shareholders are produced. No minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors are produced. There is no minute book. The company had no banking accounts in which its bank balance could be or was kept.

( 5 ) ON 27-4-1956 the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies wrote to the applicant Nagendra calling his attention to the fact that the company had failed to submit summaries as well as lists or shareholders for the years 1941 to 1944 and from 1944 to 1955 and pointing out that if those summaries and lists were not filed within seven days, then such failure would result in prosecution.

( 6 ) APPLICANT Nagendra replied to that letter on 7-5-1956 stating that his elder brother Rai Saheb U. N. Mondal was the Managing Director of the Company and was in sole and exclusive management as such and that the Managing Director had all the books, records and papers of the company under his exclusive control and management and that, he the applicant Nagendra had "absolutely nothing to do with that matter. " He informed the Registrar that Rai Saheb U. N. Mondal had died on 4-5-1956 leaving three sons of whom the eldest was Baidya Nath and asserted that Baidya Nath had been a Director of the Company all along. Applicant Nagendra further stated in that letter that after the death of the Managing Director which happened only three days before the letter, all the records, account books and papers of the Company were in the possession of Baidya Nath Mondal. Having shifted the responsibility on the respondent Baidya Nath Mondal, the applicant Nagendra Nath Mondal proceeds in that letter to advice the Registrar in the following words :"in the circumstances I pray that the necessary informations may be gathered from the sai




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top