The NCLAT made it evident that when interpreting sub-section (8) of Section 248 it has no bearing on the Tribunal's authority to wind up the firm whose name has been removed from the register of companies.
The issue was whether or not the company's name was revoked in accordance with Section 248 of the 2013 Companies Act while the winding-up petition was pending. With the freedom to file a new petition for winding up as and when the Respondent company is revived, the NCLT denied the petition for winding up. The Appellants filed this appeal because they were not satisfied with this order.
In the instant case titled Late Mona Aggarwal Through Her Legal Heir Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. v. Ghaziabad Engg. Company Ltd. & Ors., the issue raised for clarification before the NCLAT was:
Whether the NCLT is able to move forward with the winding up petition?
With regard to this issue, according to NCLAT, the NCLT may continue with the petition for winding up under the 2013 Companies Act even after the name of the firm has been removed from the register of companies.
The NCLAT noted that it is obvious from sub-section (8) of Section 248 that Section 248 will not in any way hinder the Tribunal's ability to wind up the firm whose name has been removed from the register of companies.
Therefore, the NCLT may continue with the petition for winding up under Section 271 of the 2013 Companies Act even after the company's name has been removed from the register of companies.
As a result, the NCLT's order is hereby overturned since it is not legal and sent back to NCLT New Delhi for consideration of the merits of the winding-up case.
The NCLAT categorically stated that,
"Provided that notwithstanding the undertakings referred to in this sub-section, the assets of the company shall be made available for the payment or discharge of all its liabilities and obligations even after the date of the order removing the name of the company from the register of companies. (7) The liability, if any, of every director, manager or other officer who was exercising any power of management, and of every member of the company dissolved under sub-section (5), shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved".