Provisions of Section 252(1) and 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 are distinct and mutually exclusive and operate under different set of circumstances | Section 252(3) is not intended to merely extend the period of limitation in cases which are otherwise covered under Section 252(1) but where the aggrieved person failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period – Mrs. Daksha Atul Desai Vs. Registrar of Companies – NCLT Mumbai Bench
Hon’ble NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the remedy of appeal is provided under Section 252(1) to an aggrieved person when the company is struck off at the instance of the Registrar of Companies on failure of such company to comply with the requisite conditions laid down under Section 248(1) of the Act. However, application under provisions of Section 252(3) can be made by aggrieved company, member, etc., when the company is struck off voluntarily at the behest of the promoters/ directors. Thus, it emerges that the provisions of Section 252(1) and 252(3) are distinct and mutually exclusive and operate under different set of circumstances. Section 252(3) is not intended to merely extend the period of limitation in cases which are otherwise covered under Section 252(1) but where the aggrieved person failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period.
