JUDGMENT :

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) :

1. The respondent-companies, being shell companies having no real function and/or existence, were struck off from the register of companies. Some of them were revived later. All of them were shareholders of the petitioner no. 1-company.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite having been struck off, the shell companies have been transacting with shares of the petitioner no.1, thereby adversely affecting the commercial interests of the petitioner no.1-Company, which amounts to financial fraud and corporate offence.

3. Despite the petitioners having complained repeatedly to the respondent-Authorities, no action has been taken on such behalf.

4. At the time of hearing, only the Registrar of Companies (ROC) is represented through counsel and the other respondents choose not to appear, despite service.

5. The ROC argues that its role, in the present context, is limited to Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2013 Act”), pertaining to striking off companies after the enquiry as contemplated therein. Section 252 provides for a challenge to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against such strikin