/2022 INSC 0873/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4448 OF 2015
NIRENDRA NATH KAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOPAL NAVIN BHAI DAVE & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and   order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 17 th
October, 2012 while setting  aside the finding returned by the learned
Single   Judge   dated   8 th
  August,   2012   in   sequel   affirmed   order   of   the
Registrar   of   Companies     (RoC)   striking   off   the   name   of   the   Company
from   the   register   of   RoC   by   an   Order   dated   27 th
  January,   2006   in
exercise   of   power   under   Section   560(5)   of   the   Companies   Act,
1956(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1956”).
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:­
The   initial   incorporation   of   the   Company   was   in   the   name   of
Basanti   Cotton   Mills   Private   Limited   with   three   Directors,   namely,

(i)Gopal   N.   Dave,   (ii)   Nikhil   Basant   Lal   Merchant,   (iii)   Paresh   Basant
Lal   Merchant   and   the   authorized   share   capital   of   the   Company   was
Rs.10,00,000/­   divided   into   1,00,000   equity   shares   of   Rs.10   each.
The name of the Basanti Cotton Mills Private Limited was changed to
Basanti   Cotton   Mills(1998)   Private   Limited   on   3 rd
  March,   2000.     The
last annual return and audited accounts were filed with the Registrar
of   Companies   for   the   financial   year   2002­2003.     The   name   of   the
Company in terms of Section 560(5) of the Act, 1956 was struck off by
the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal on 27 th
 January, 2006 at the
instance of the respondents(Directors of the Company).
3. It may be relevant to note that the Registrar of Companies in its
affidavit   in   opposition   before   the   High   Court   asserted   that   the
company  was not functioning  and not carrying out any  business and
the last annual return was filed of the year 2002­2003.   The relevant
extract is quoted hereunder:­
“Basanti Cotton Mills(1998) Pvt. Ltd.
12.08.1998 The   company   was   formed   and   registered   under   the
Companies   Act   1956   as   Basanti   Cotton   Mills   Pvt.   Ltd.
bearing Registration no.87716.
First Directors of the Company were –
a) GOPAL N DAVE
b) NIKHIL M. MERCHANT
c) PARESH V. MERCHANT
10.03.2003 Last   Annual   Return   filed   by   the   company   made   upto
04.02.2003   wherein   the   following   were   shown   as   its
directors.
 
a) GOPAL N DAVE

b) NIKHIL M MERCHANT
c) PARESH V MERCHANT
                As per Annexure­A
23.12.2003 Last Balance Sheet of the Company as at 30.09.2003 filed
by the company.
                        As per Annexure­B
03.03.2009 Name of  the  Company  changed  from  Basanti  Cotton  Mills
Pvt.   Ltd.   to   Basanti   Cotton   Mills   (1998)   Pvt.   Ltd.   under
Section 21 of the Companies Act 1956.
                      As per Annexure­C
10.10.2008 DIN   No.3   in  respect   of   Nirendranath  Kar   filed  under   MCA
online filing system
                       As per Annexure­D
17.11.2008 One   Form   NO.   18   filed   under   the   signature   of
Narendranath Kar showing the change of Registered Office
of   the   company   from   B.T.   Road   Panihati   to   109,   F,   139F
and 137 F.B.T. Road, Panihati w.e.f. 10.10.2008.
                         As per Annexure­E
10.10.2009 05.11.2009­DIN No. 3 in respect of Dipali Chowdhury and
Babulal   Banerjee   filed   under   MCA   online   filing   system
under the signature of Nirendranath Kar.
                          As per Annexure­F
N.B. 1) In this regard it may kindly be pointed out that though DIN NO.
3   in   respect   of   Nirendranath   Kar,   Dipali   Chowdhury   and   Babulal   Banerjee
has   been   filed   online   under   the   Digital   signature   of   Nirendranath   Kar,
however   no   Form   32   has   been   filed   showing   the   appointment   of   the   said
three persons as directors of the company with Registrar of Companies West
Bengal   (ROC,   WB).     In   terms   of   the   provisions   of   Section   303   of   the
Companies Act, 1956.
2) DIN   3   form   could   be   filed   by   a   person   for   himself   and   thereby   his
name   used   to   become   recorded   as   Director   of   the   Company.     But
corresponding filing of Form 32 is necessary to corroborate the DIN 3 filed.
3) In   view   of   the   above   it   can   be   said   that   the   names   of   Nirendranath
Kar,   Dipali   Chowdhury   and   Babulal   Banerjee   may   not   be   evident   as
Directors   of   the   company   in   absence   of   any   such   filing   of   Form   No.   32   as
required under Section 303 of the Companies Act, 1956 .”
[emphasis supplied]
4. After the name was struck off, it was published in the Gazette of
27 th
 January, 2006.  The bank also issued no dues certificate in favour

of Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Pvt. Ltd. to release charge of the assets
of the Company.   Complaint was filed by the appellant claiming to be
one of the Directors of the Company in the year 2010 before the High
Court   under   Section   560(6)   of   the   Act   1956.     Learned   Single   Judge
allowed the application by judgment and order dated 6 th
 October, 2010
after   recording   a   finding   that   the   procedure   as   prescribed   under
Section   560   of   the   Act   1956   was   not   followed   before   striking   off   the
name of the Company from the register of the RoC.  
5. The   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   was   assailed   before   the
Division Bench of the High Court and that came to be set aside by an
order dated 22 nd
 March, 2011 and the matter was remitted back to the
learned Single Judge to determine the issue afresh in accordance with
law.
6. The   Company   Judge,   by   judgment   and   order   dated   8 th
  August,
2012,  allowed  the  application  and  restored  the  name  of  the  company
and that again became the subject matter of challenge in appeal before
the High Court which came to be decided by  the judgment impugned
dated   17 th
  October,   2012   holding   that   the   appellant   has   no   locus
standi   as   he   is   neither   a   Company   nor   a   member   nor   creditor   hence
he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to question the order of the
Registrar in striking off the name of the Company from the register of
RoC as referred to under Section 560(5) of the Act 1956.   The extract

of the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court, after
perusal of the admitted facts on records of the Company, maintained
by the Registrar is as under:­
“In a case of the like nature when there was dispute with regard
to   the   status   of   the   petitioner   it   would   be   safe   for   the   Court   to   rely
upon   the   admitted   records   being   the   records   maintained   by   the
Registrar.
From the records produced by ROC appearing at pages 39 to 77
of   the   paper   book   (Volume­II),   we   would   find,   as   on   the   date   of   the
striking   off   not   a   single   document   would   show   the   nexus   of   the
respondent   no.   1   with   the   company.     He   came   in   picture   in   October
2008   through   filing   of   DIN.     Documents   filed   after   2008   would   also
show,   he   was   Director   since   1998   as   claimed   by   him.     Such   dispute
would   have   to   be   resolved   in   an   appropriate   forum.     Section   560
would   not   give   power   to   the   Court   to   adjudicate   as   to   such   dispute.
The   court   would   be   relying   upon   the   admitted   records   that   would
clearly   show,   respondent   no.   1   did   not   feature   in   the   records.     His
belated   plea   would   also   keep   him   at   bay.     His   prayer   for   restoration
would wait   for  a  decision  in his favour   on  his  status  by   a  competent
civil court or any other appropriate forum.  The learned Judge should
not   have   restored   the   name   of   the   company   at   the   instance   of
someone whose identity is yet to be established.”
7. It is brought to our notice that as per the last balance sheet filed
for  the year  2002­2003, the paid up share capital of the Company  in
question   was   Rs.7,000/­   and   if   that   is   being   taken   at   the   face   value
which   is   supported   by   documentary   evidence   on   record,   as   per   the
scheme of Section 3 of the Act 1956, the Company is deemed to be a
defunct company.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the additional
documents which he has filed in support of his submission, although
it is informed that such documents were not available before the High
Court when the proceedings were initiated/instituted by the appellant.

That apart, the document produced by the appellant including the DIN
forms   obtained   in   September/October   2008,   much   after   name   of   the
Company was struck off in the year 2006 and even Form 32 which has
now   been   placed   on   record   by   the   appellant   has   been   seriously
disputed by the respondents.
9. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   on   the   other   hand,   has
brought to our notice the affidavit that was filed before the High Court
in the first instance of which a reference has been made by this Court
indicating   that   the   present   appellant   was   nowhere   recorded   as
Director of the Company at any given point of time.
10. In   addition   to   it,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   further
submits that for all practical purposes, the name of the Company was
struck   off   way   back   on   27 th
  January,   2006   and   the   paid   up   share
capital   as   per   last   balance   sheet   of   2003   is   reduced   to   Rs.7000/­   in
terms of Section 3 of the Act 1956, such companies are deemed to be
defunct   companies   and   sixteen   years   have   rolled   after   the   date   of
striking off the name of the Company in the year 2006, there is hardly
any   justification   to   restore   the   name   of   the   Company   at   this   stage,
particularly,   when   there   are   no   operations   of   the   said   Company   all
throughout.
11. The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   under   the   impugned
judgment   has   proceeded   on   the   basis   of   the   facts   referred   to   in   the

affidavit   in   opposition   filed   by   the   RoC   while   recording   a   finding
regarding   the   locus   of   the   appellant   in   assailing   the   order   of   the
Registrar striking of the name of the Company under Section 560(5) of
the Act, 2003 and, at this stage, it is difficult to place reliance on the
documents   placed   by   the   appellant   to   claim   himself   to   be   one   of   the
Directors of the Company.
12. Taking   into   consideration   the   material   available   on   record   and
the   finding  of   fact  which   has  been   recorded   by  the   Division   Bench  of
the   High   Court   under   the   judgment   impugned,   we   find   no   reason   to
interfere.
13. Consequently,   the   appeal   fails   and   accordingly   dismissed.   No
costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
    ………………………….J.
    (AJAY RASTOGI)
    …..……………………..J.
    (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022.