Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Meghatheertham Time Sharing Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Its Managing Director

Kerala HC26 May 2023RP/310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the State challenged a direction to deposit compensation amount in a bank account belonging to a company whose name had been struck off. The Court held that striking off does not mean liquidation or cessation of all rights. Under Section 250 of the Companies Act, 1956, receival of compensation money is an exception allowing the company to exist for realising dues, so the t

What did the court decide?

Review petition is dismissed.

State of Kerala Vs Meghatheertham Time Sharing Pvt. Ltd… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 310 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19837/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IN

¶8

THE WP(C):

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , REVENUE ( B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶12

CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD – 678001.

¶13

3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KINFRA, PALAKKAD – 678001.

¶14

4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOCHI BANGALORE INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶15

SMT.K.B.SONY, GP

¶16

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C):

¶17

1 MEGHATHEERTHAM TIME-SHARING PVT LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶18

DOOR NO. 50/354, ARYA COMPLEX , MAIN ROAD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD – 678002.

¶19

2 MOHANAN C N AGED 49 YEARS

¶20

S/O NARAYANAN, DIRECTOR, MEGHATHEERTHAM TIME-SHARING PVT LTD, RESIDING AT PITTUPARA HOUSE, CHITHALI, KOZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD – 678702.

¶21

3 MANOJ M P AGED 48 YEARS

¶22

S/ O THAREPARAMBIL BALAKRISHNAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MEGHATHEERTHAM TIME-SHARING PVT LTD,

¶23

RESIDING AT SUPRABHA, ATHANIPARAMBU, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD – 678009.

¶24

RP NO. 310 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

4THE BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA GRAMIN BANK, PALAKKAD MAIN BRANCH,
PALAKKAD CITY, PALAKKAD – 678014.

¶27

BY ADVS.
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
K.MADHUSOODANAN
MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU)(K/398/2013)
SYRIAC JOSEPH(K/304/1980)
M.R.VENUGOPAL(K/000472/1994)
S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020)

¶28

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

RP NO. 310 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶32

R.P.No.310 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.19837 of 2022

¶33

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2023

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The review petition has been fled, stating that there is an i error apparent on the face of the record. Reference is made to Sections 248 and 252 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is submitted that once the name of the company has been removed by the Registrar of Companies, the company ceases to exist and no transactions can take place in its bank account. It is hence stated that the direction to remit the compensation amount which is due to the company in the account of the company, which is still live, cannot be complied with. Grounds are also taken to the efect that the directors of the company, which has f been struck of, are not competent to alienate the property and f the amount has to be deposited before a competent court.

¶36

2 . This Court has, in the judgment sought to be reviewed,

¶37

RP NO. 310 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

specifcally found that as the company has not been liquidated i and the bank account is live, there is no reason why the amount due to the company should not be deposited in the bank account. It was in the above circumstances that the directions were issued. Section 248, which has been referred to, authorises the Registrar to dissolve a company and remove its name. The Section says that the company can also request for removal of the name after extinguishing all its liability. The Section says that the power of the Tribunal to wind up the company, the name of which has been struck of f in the register of the companies, is still available. It is hence evident that striking of does not amount to winding up. Section 250 says about the efect of notifying a company as dissolved. The Section f specifcally says that the Certif i cate of Incorporation issued to i the company shall be deemed to have been cancelled except for the purpose of realising the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company. Realisation of an amount due to the company and

¶40

RP NO. 310 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company, do not amount to “carrying on the business or operations of the company”. In the case on hand, what is sought to be realised is only the compensation payable for the acquisition of the assets of the company, which comes within the exceptions provided in Section 250. In such circumstances, the grounds raised in the review petition are not sustainable.

¶43

The review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

mpm

RP NO. 310 OF 2023

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF RP 310/2023

¶50

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶51

Annexure1TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
NO. 2258/2022 DATED 03/02/2022 OF THE
S.R.O PALAKKAD.
Annexure2TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO 6115/2014
DATED 04/11/2014 OF S.R.O PALAKKAD.
Annexure3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FNO .0
/73/2017/CL2 DATED 01-08-2017 TO THE
CHAIRMAN, IBA, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, MUMBAI.

State of Kerala v. Meghatheertham Time Sharing Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Meghatheertham Time Sharing Pvt. Ltd, Represented by Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kodiyil Ashraf Vs S. Chandrasekar (Ias)

Susan Mathew Vs Renjith George

Sambashivan Vs Manoj K.R

Thankappan Vs Sabimol P.S.

Dr.P.Visalam Vs the District Collector

Panikkaveettil Sir Sebastian Public School, Vs Salmanul Farris