Page 78 – Vaish Associates Advocates

Delhi High Court orders for global takedown of Data

The High Court of Delhi, in the case of Swami Ramdev and Another v. Facebook, Inc., and Others (decided on October 23, 2019) ordered Facebook, Inc. and other platforms to takedown, remove, block, restrict or disable access on a global basis, to all the defamatory videos and content that was challenged in this suit, from Indian IP addresses, holding that the videos are not just offensive against the plaintiffs but could also be considered to border on threats constituting violations of law.

FACTS
Swami Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda Limited (“Plaintiffs”) filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Facebook, Inc., Google, Inc., YouTube LLC, Google Plus, Twitter International Company and Ashok Kumar (John Doe) (“Defendants”) on the ground that various defamatory remarks and information in the form of videos, based on the book ‘Godman to Tycoon- the Untold Story of Baba Ramdev’, are being published on the web platforms of the Defendants.

The named book was restrained earlier by a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court from being published, distributed or sold without deleting the offending portions of the book. The Plaintiffs alleged that the allegations contained in the videos uploaded on the Defendants’ platforms were the same as the offending portions of the book which were directed to be removed. Thus, an interim order was granted directing removal of the offending URL and web links for the domain of India. Thereafter, the platforms have placed on record the Basic Subscriber Information (“BSI”) relating to the uploading of the videos. None of the Defendants have any objection to blocking the URLs and disabling the same, insofar as access in India is concerned. However, all the Defendant platforms have raised objections to removal / blocking / disabling the impugned content on a global basis.

ISSUES
Since the Defendants had no issue in blocking the content in the Indian domain, the prima facie issues and arguments discussed in court were on the question of global blocking of the content –
1. Mis-joinder/ non-joinder of parties;
2. Whether the content is defamatory?
3. Whether the Defendants are intermediaries and if so, what should be the form of injunction order that is to be passed against them?

ARGUMENTS
The Plaintiffs put forth the argument that if the Defendants seek the protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) on the ground that they are intermediaries, then they are bound to follow due diligence required under law. The Plaintiffs relied on the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523] to interpret the phrase “actual knowledge” in Section 79 in a Court order, leading to the argument that, once the Court passes an order, they are bound to disable the content globally, and cannot raise objections to the geographical extent of the implementation of the injunction. The Plaintiffs further relied on the definitions of “computer resource”, “computer system”, “computer network” and “data” in the IT Act respectively to submit that the IT Act does not provide that the blocking has to be restricted to the territory of India. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs submitted that it is impractical to force them to avail legal remedies in every country to ensure that content is taken down, and that such a stance would also render the remedy granted by the Court completely ineffective.

The Defendants placed their reliance on various cases such as Google, Inc. v. Equustek Solutions, Robert Angus and Clarma Enterprises, Inc. [2017 SCC 34 (Supreme Court of Canada)] and Google LLC v. Equustek Solutions, Inc., (decided on December 14, 2017), to submit that what constitutes defamation varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and therefore, passing of a global disabling order would be contrary to the principle of comity of courts and would result in conflict of laws. It was also one of their major contentions that no effort was made by the Plaintiffs to implead the persons whose details were provided in the BSI by the Defendants, and parties that were actually responsible for uploading the actual content online.

Another line of argument put forth by the Defendants was that the distribution of information and views on the internet were an integral part of freedom of speech and expression, and that the criticism is ought to be borne by the Plaintiffs as they are public figures. It is also argued that if orders can be passed by national Courts which would result in global removal of content, then law of free speech on the internet would be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

In rejoinder submissions, the Plaintiffs submitted that the BSI released by the Defendants’ platforms do not give any details except the IP addresses, and in some cases, mobile numbers and e-mail addresses have been given. It was submitted that the list does not lead to the clarity whether those individuals are even identifiable.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT

Issue 1:
On the question of mis-joinder and non-joinder, the court observed and found that the BSI released by the Defendants contains information in the form of account IDs along with IP addresses, and the Defendants have to make detailed enquiries and investigations in order to identify the complete contact details of the individuals. The court found that the Plaintiffs could not have ascertained the identity of the individuals at the time the suit was filed, as the information appeared cryptic. Thus, the Delhi High Court found that the objection by the Defendants that, due to non-joinder of these parties the suit is not liable to be entertained, is not tenable at this stage. Therefore, this led to the conclusion by the Court that, at the prima facie stage, the suit is not liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the alleged uploaders of the information or the publishers, or the author of the book.

Issue 2:
On the issue whether the content in the video is of defamatory nature, the Delhi High Court found that there was no uncertainty in the fact that the video clearly attempted to give an impression to the viewers that the Plaintiffs have been involved in various murders, financial irregularities, misuse of animal parts, etc. The Court also observed that the video claimed to have derived and summarized the views of the book itself, thus making the Single Judge Bench judgement, that held certain parts of the book as defamatory, clearly a relevant fact. It further observed and found that the Single Judge, after considering the law of defamation, including the balance between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, had concluded that the content of the book is not justified. The implicit allegations have been held to be prima facie untrue. Therefore, the Delhi High Court held that the videos were in violation of the judgement earlier passed by the Single Bench. This led the Delhi High Court to conclude that the content of the videos was defamatory.

Issue 3:
On the third issue, the Delhi High Court analysed the definition of “geo-blocking”, and concluded it to mean the blocking of a content from country to country, or one region to another. It also observed that when a content is geoblocked, it would still be available on the other global platforms save on the platforms of the country where geoblocking has been carried out. Referring and analysing the international legal position on geo-blocking and global injunctions, the Court observed that some courts have taken the view that granting of global injunctions is not appropriate, and other courts and forums, in recent decisions, have taken a view that if the circumstances warrant, global injunctions ought to be granted. The Court noted that arguments pertaining specifically to comity of courts, conflict of laws, etc. were raised even in these proceedings. It analysed in detail, the terms “access” and “intermediaries” in Section 79 of the IT Act. It also elaborately discussed the relevant holdings of several Indian and international case laws, comparing their relevancy to the present factual matrix, concluded that so long as the uploading from India led to the data or information residing in the network or being connected to the network, the same ought to be disabled or blocked globally.

The Court also analysed the exact order of injunction that is required to be passed in the present case. It concluded that Section 75 of the IT Act shows that the IT Act does have extra territorial application to offences or contraventions committed outside India, so long as the computer system or network is located in India.

DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT

On the findings and conclusions of the Delhi High Court, as discussed above, it passed the following directions in the present case, clearly iterating that the views of the Court in the judgement are prima facie in nature-

1) The Defendants were directed to take down, remove, block, restrict/ disable access, on a global basis, all such videos/ web links/ URLs that had the defamatory videos discussed in the judgement, which have been uploaded from IP addresses within India.

2) The Defendants were directed to block access and disable the URLs/ links that contained the defamatory videos, which have been uploaded from outside India, and prevent them from being viewed in the Indian domain and ensure that users in India are unable to access the same.

3) The Court also further directed the Plaintiffs to notify the Defendant platforms, when they find any further URLs containing defamatory/ offending content as discussed above, which shall then be taken down by the Defendants either on a global basis, or for the Indian domain, depending on from where the content has been uploaded. Upon receiving such intimation from the Plaintiffs, if the Defendants are of the opinion that they were not defamatory, they shall intimate the Plaintiffs of the same and the Plaintiffs could seek remedy in accordance with law.

Vaish Associates Advocates View
The Delhi High Court has given a judgement with far reaching consequences, which may open a pandora’s box of territorial conundrum. The global application of an injunction not only gives sweeping powers to block data, but at the same time involves imposition of India’s take on what comprises of defamation on other jurisdictions.

This judgement is against the tide in the international trend of free flow of data on the internet, and takes a rather cloistered view of the same. The Court of Justice of the European Union passed a judgement on September 24, 2019 holding that Google cannot be directed to remove search results from its global service, just because the content was declared illegal by an EU member state.

This judgement has also allowed the Plaintiffs to directly approach the platforms in case of any future content, and thereafter, if the platforms hold it to be not defamatory, it can approach the courts. This permission is a deviation from the settled principles of law which require an intermediary to take down content only when there is an order from the government or the court, in accordance with the IT Act. If such permissions of making direct requests to the intermediaries is entertained, the intermediaries will be required to judge thousands of requests every day, which would be difficult to act upon.

For more information please write to Mr. Bomi Daruwala at [email protected]

India’s protocol on amendment to the India Brazil Tax Treaty and Proposals for Innovative Elephant Bonds

Pursuant to India’s increased focus on boosting foreign investment and cross-border businesses along with countering harmful tax practices, following developments have taken place recently:

Indian’s Union Cabinet approves the signing of the Protocol amending the India Brazil Tax Treaty for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income

The existing Tax Treaty between India and Brazil is being amended to bring it in line with international developments and also to implement the recommendations contained in the G20 OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project (BEPS) in view of the fact that Brazil has opted not to sign the Multilateral Convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent BEPS (MLI).

The existing Tax Treaty between India and Brazil was signed on 26th April, 1988 and was amended through a Protocol signed on 15th October 2013 in respect of exchange of information. According to the press release by the Government of India, significant amendments made vide this protocol are as under:

Tax rates in source state have been lowered on interest, royalties and fees for technical services in order to incentivise cross border business and investment.
Minimum standards and other recommendations of BEPS Project have been implemented.
A preamble text, Principal Purpose Test, a general anti abuse provision along with a simplified Limitation of Benefits clause have been included to curb tax planning strategies which exploit the gaps and mismatches in the law.
Taxing rights have been clearly allocated between both the countries to provide tax certainty to investors and businesses.
Other updations have been made with a view to facilitate elimination of double taxation.

The amending protocol would come into force upon official notification by the Central Government.

Recommendation made by Central Government’s High-Level Advisory Group for issuance of “Elephant Bonds” to bring back undisclosed foreign income and assets:

A High-Level Advisory Group (HLAG) was constituted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry under the Central Government to make recommendations for boosting India’s global trade, bilateral trade relations and other economic activities. In its report issued in September 2019, HLAG has suggested, inter alia, the issuance of “Elephant Bonds” as an amnesty scheme to bring undisclosed foreign income and assets back to India and channelize such funds for investment in infrastructure. Salient features of the proposed “Elephant Bonds” scheme are as under:

Undisclosed foreign income and asset can be declared by paying tax at the rate of 15%.
40% of the funds so disclosed shall be invested in Elephant Bonds for a period of 20-30 years. The proceeds from bonds would be invested in infrastructure in India. The balance funds would be available with the declarant for utilisation in India.
The scheme would provide immunity from any action under financial laws in respect of the undisclosed income or assets declared.
The coupon rate of interest on Elephant Bonds would be linked to LIBOR and the coupon rate would be 5%. The interest earned would be taxed at the rate of 75%.

Comments: The proposed amnesty scheme while being pragmatic would channelize the undisclosed income and assets staked abroad towards the pressing need of infrastructural development in India. While this is not the first time that an amnesty scheme has been proposed to bring the black money back in India, the proposed scheme on cracking down black money seems very attractive as it provides immunity from applicable laws.

India’s Withdrawal from RCEP Negotiations

On November 4, 2019 at the ASEAN summit held at Bangkok, India opted out of the negotiations for signing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a proposed free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region with 15 other potential participants previously projected to account for over 30% of the global GDP.

Earlier in the year, India’s offer for relaxation of tariffs on 74% to 86% of traded goods was rejected during negotiation as being conservative against the demanded 92%. Furthermore, rising concerns of prejudice to Indian manufacturing sector has forced India to safeguard its domestic market against high-volume low-cost imports from RCEP signatories, most notably, a number of ‘sensitive’ imports from China including steel and polyester fabrics. Other areas of concern included imports of palm oil from Malaysia and Indonesia, dairy products from Australia and New Zealand along with tea, cardamom and vanilla from other Southeast Asian countries.

India had further called for tightening of the Rules of Origin (ROO) criterion in its apprehension of third-party imports being routed through RCEP states.

The proposal for an auto-trigger mechanism advanced by India for provisional and automatic increase in duties in the event of surge in particular product imports set off by volume or cost ceilings was also shot down by the remainder of the negotiating states.

Additionally, a proposed investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism allowed entities from signatory states to initiate action before international arbitral fora against other signatory states for the framing of certain trade regulations apprehended to be against commercial interests. Fearing profit-driven challenges to the scope of domestic legislation, India backed by other negotiating states, vehemently opposed inclusion of the ISDS proposal and it was effectively discarded, with an option to reconsider at a later stage of implementation of the RCEP.

Yet another major ground of dissatisfaction for India was the inability to agree upon the greater market access sought for India’s service professionals – a significant demand considering India accounted for 3.47% of world service exports in 2017, as against only 1.68% of world merchandise exports in the same year.

An ‘early harvest’ approach to sign the proposed RCEP and resolve the remainder of the issues thereafter, was dismissed upfront by India. The reluctance to compromise on outstanding concerns may be further exacerbated by India’s total trade deficit, 64% of which is with RCEP nations. This cautious stance comes in light of criticism of India’s previous free trade commitments. In 2008, India’s FTA utilization rate was estimated to be just under 25%, one of the lowest in Asia.

CCI increases filing fee for notifying mergers!

Competition Commission of India increases the filing fee for merger notifications.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) vide notification dated 30 October 2019 has amended the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011 (Combination Regulations).

By way of the amendment, the CCI has revised the filing fee for notification of mergers to the CCI. It is the third time the filing fee has been increased. The first such amendment was in February 2012 followed by a further enhancement in the filing fee in March 2014.

The revised filing fees are as set out below:

The filing fee to be remitted for a Form I Notice (Short Form Notice) has been increased from INR 15,00,000 (Fifteen Lakh Rupees only) to INR 20,00,000 (Twenty Lakh Rupees Only); and

The filing fee to be remitted for a Form II Notice (Long Form Notice) has been increased from INR 50,00,000 (Fifty Lakh Rupees Only) to INR 65,00,000 (Sixty-Five Lakh Rupees Only).

For more information please write to Mr. MM Sharam at [email protected]

Whether black money act is retrospectively applicable?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed a judgment on 15.10.2019 in an appeal filed by the Union of India against an interim order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by Mr. Gautam Khaitan restraining the Union of India from taking any action against him.

The question that was put before the Apex Court, was whether the High Court was right in observing that while exercise of the powers under the provisions of Sections 85 and 86 of the Black Money Act, the Central Government has made the said act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015 and passed a restraint order?

While answering the said questions, the Apex discussed various provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.

The Black Money Act was passed by the Parliament on 11.05.2015 and it has received Presidential assent on 26.05.2015.
Sub-section (3) of Section 1 provides, that save as otherwise provided in the said Act, it shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 2016.
By the notification/order notified on 01.07.2015, it has been provided, that the Black Money Act shall come into force on 01.07.2015, i.e., the date on which the order is issued under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Black Money Act.
As per Section 3 of the Black Money Act, tax shall be charged on every Assessee for every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 in respect of his total undisclosed foreign income and assets of the previous year.

The proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Black Money Act provides, that undisclosed assets located outside India shall be charged to tax on its value in the previous year in which such asset comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer.

Section 2 (9) (d) of the Black Money Act defines “previous year” as period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April of the relevant year and which immediately precedes the assessment year.
Section 59 of the Black Money Act gives an opportunity to the Assessee to make a declaration in respect of any undisclosed asset located outside India and acquired from income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, for any assessment year prior to the assessment year beginning on 01.04.2016.

Section 59 further provides, that such a declaration has to be made on or after the date of commencement of the Black Money Act, however, before the date to be notified by the Central Government.

The Central Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 59 of the Black Money Act, published a Notification on 01.07.2015, notifying 30.09.2015 as the date on or before which a person is required to make a declaration in respect of an undisclosed asset located outside India. It also notifies 31.12.2015 as the date on or before which the person shall pay the tax and penalty in respect of such undisclosed asset located outside India.

CONSEQUENCE OF NON DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 59 OF THE BLACK MONEY ACT
As per Section 72 of the Black Money Act, where no declaration in respect of the asset covered under the Black Money Act is made, such asset would be deemed to have been acquired or made in the year in which a notice under Section 10 is issued by the Assessing Officer and the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly.

Section 50 provides that if any person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India, who has furnished the return of income for any previous year under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, wilfully fails to furnish in such return any information relating to an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, held by a beneficial owner or otherwise or in which he was a beneficiary, at any time during such previous year, or disclose any income from a source outside India, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine.
On the other hand, Section 51 provides for penalty for wilful attempt in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under the Income-tax Act. The punishment provided under Sub-section (1) is for rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to ten years and with fine. In respect to any other person not covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 51, the punishment provided is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and shall, in the discretion of the court, also be liable to fine.

In order to give the benefit to the Assessee(s) and to remove the anomalies the date 01.07.2015 has been substituted in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act, in place of 01.04.2016. This is done, so as to enable the Assessee desiring to take benefit of Section 59 of the Black Money Act. By doing so, the Assessees, who desired to take the benefit of one time opportunity, could have made declaration prior to 30th September, 2015 and paid the tax and penalty prior to 31st December, 2015.

A conjoint reading of the various provisions would reveal, that the Assessing Officer can charge the taxes only from the assessment year commencing on or after 01.04.2016. However, the value of the said asset has to be as per its valuation in the previous year. The Apex Court further observed that even if there was no change of date in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act, the value of the asset was to be determined as per its valuation in the previous year. The date has been changed only for the purpose of enabling the Assessee(s) to take benefit of Section 59 of the Black Money Act. Section 50 & 51 would come into play only when an Assessee has failed to take benefit of Section 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon.

In view of the above explanation, the Apex Court observed that the High Court was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable.

Conclusion:
Finally, the Apex court held that the interim order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law, the same is quashed and set aside.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide the said judgment, while allowing the appeal, requested the High Court to decide the writ petition on its own merits. However, it clarified that the observations made by it are only for the purposes of examining the correctness of the interim order passed by the High Court and the High Court would decide the writ petition uninfluenced by the same.

For more information please write to
Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmia at [email protected]
Mr. Aditya Dhar at [email protected]

Corporate Insolvency Resolution can be initiated against a struck-off company

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Mr. Hemang Phophalia v. The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited and Another (decided on September 05, 2019) has held that a creditor can file an application requiring the restoration of the name of a dissolved/struck-off company in the register of companies for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against the said company.

FACTS
The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited (“Financial Creditor”) filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to initiate CIRP against Penguin Umbrella Works Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (“NCLT, Mumbai”) admitted the said insolvency application. An appeal was filed against the said order by Mr. Hemang Phophalia, Ex-Director and Shareholder of the Corporate Debtor (“Appellant”) as the name of the Corporate Debtor was struck-off from the register of companies and insolvency proceedings could not be initiated against a dissolved company.

ISSUE
Whether an application under Section 7 or 9 under IBC for initiating CIRP is maintainable against a Corporate Debtor, if the name of the Corporate Debtor is struck-off from the register of companies

ARGUMENTS
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the name of the Corporate Debtor was struck-off from the register of companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”), therefore, an application under Section 7 of IBC against a non-existent company is not maintainable. It was further submitted that in view of initiation of the CIRP, the resolution professional will ask the Appellant, ex-Director and others to handover the records and assets of the Corporate Debtor, which are not available. It was also submitted that the Corporate Debtor is non-functional since a number of years. The Corporate Debtor does not have any assets or any employees. Therefore, the resolution professional cannot make the Corporate Debtor a going concern. Accordingly, the application under Section 7 is not maintainable.

The arguments of the respondent have not been provided in the judgment.

FINDINGS OF THE NCLAT
NCLAT reproduced the relevant provisions of the Companies Act which deal with removal of names of companies from the register of companies as provided in Chapter XVIII of the Companies Act. As per Section 248(6) of the Companies Act, before passing an order to remove the name from the register of companies, the Registrar is to satisfy himself that sufficient provision has been made for realization of all amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations within a reasonable time and, if necessary, obtain necessary undertakings from the managing director, director or other persons in charge of the management of the company.

As per the proviso thereof, notwithstanding the undertakings referred to in Section 248(6) of the Companies Act, the assets of the company are to be made available for payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations even after the date of the order removing the name of the company from the register of companies. From Section 248(7) of the Companies Act, it is also clear that 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 which is dissolved, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved. Further, Section 250 of the Companies Act, also provides that after removal of the name of the company from the register of companies for the purpose of realizing the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company, the company shall not cease to be operational.

As per Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, if a company, or any member or creditor or workman thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under sub-section (5) of Section 248, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies and the tribunal may give such other directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. The NCLAT held that the tribunal is the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 60(1) of the IBC. Hence, on one side it plays role of adjudicating authority and on the other, tribunal, under the Companies Act.

Therefore, if an application is filed by a creditor (be it a financial creditor or an operational creditor) or workman (operational creditor) before the expiry of twenty years as prescribed, it is open to the adjudicating authority to give such directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the name of the company and all other persons in the same position nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. The name of the Corporate Debtor may be struck-off, but the assets may continue. In such a case and in view of the provisions of the Companies Act, the NCLAT held that the application under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC will be maintainable against a company, even if the name of the company has been struck-off.

DECISION OF THE NCLAT
Adjudicating authority which is also the tribunal is empowered to restore the name of a company and all other persons in their respective position for the purpose of initiation of CIRP under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC based on the application, if filed by the creditors or workmen within twenty years from the date as prescribed under the provisions of the Companies Act. In the present case, the application under Section 7 was admitted, the Corporate Debtor and its directors, officers, etc. were deemed to have been restored.

Vaish Associates Advocates View
Several companies opt for de-registration by removing their name from the register of companies instead of undergoing the protracted process of winding up. In order to successfully remove their name from the register of companies, the conditions of Section 248 of the Companies Act need to be complied with. Most importantly, the Registrar of companies needs to be satisfied that sufficient provisions have been made for the payment or discharge of all the liabilities of the company. Nevertheless, the Companies Act keeps the liability of directors, managers or other officers who were exercising any power of management and of every member of the company alive.

Furthermore, Section 252(3) of the Companies Act also allows any aggrieved member, creditor or workman of the company to make an application to reverse the removal of the name of the company from the register of companies before the expiry of twenty years as prescribed in the Companies Act. The tribunal is required to exercise its discretion and be satisfied on one of these two counts for such an application to succeed (a) the company was at the time of striking off carrying on business or in operation or (b) it would be just that the company is restored.

In the present case, it was decided that the NCLT has been accorded the role of a tribunal under the Companies Act and the adjudicating authority under the IBC. Hereunder, NCLT, Mumbai considered it just for the purpose of initiation of the CIRP by the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor to restore the name of the said Corporate Debtor in the register of companies. Therefore, this decision settles two important issues, namely: (1) applications under Section 252(3) of Companies Act for restoring the name of a struck-off company to initiate IBC proceedings against the said company is permissible; (2) creditors seeking to initiate CIRP against a dissolved debtor would not be required to first make an application for restoring the name of the dissolved company and then approach the NCLT for initiation of IBC proceedings; both can be done by way of a single application before the concerned NCLT.

For more information please write to Mr. Bomi Daruwala at [email protected]