Section 249: Restrictions on making application under section 248 in certain situations

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 249

Section 249 of the Companies Act, 2013 delineates mandatory negative conditions precedent that prohibit a company from applying for fast-track removal of its name under Section 248(2), guarding against the fraudulent use of administrative strike-off to evade creditor scrutiny, ongoing litigation, or corporate restructuring.

  • Three-Month Statutory Static Cooling Period: Completely bars strike-off applications if, within the preceding three months, the company has changed its corporate name or shifted its registered office from one State to another.
  • Prohibition of Active Trading and Commercial Asset Realization: Precludes filing where the company has disposed of property or rights for gain in the ordinary course of trading, restricting allowable pre-filing activities strictly to actions necessary to conclude company affairs.
  • Bar During Restructuring and Insolvency Proceedings: Forbids an application under Section 248(2) if compromise or arrangement proceedings under Chapter XV remain pending before the Tribunal or if the company is undergoing winding up or IBC resolution.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Registrar of Companies v. C.V. Kishore Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 855: The NCLAT held that Section 249 establishes jurisdictional conditions precedent; any strike-off application filed by a company that had active commercial operations or unresolved liabilities is null and void ab initio.
  • Pankaj Aggarwal v. Crown International Travel Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 310: Held that where an application for strike-off was made during corporate governance disputes and concealed asset transfers, Section 249 was breached, warranting immediate restoration of the corporate entity under Section 252.
  • Union of India v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 52: The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory exit procedures cannot be used to bypass legal responsibilities, and procedural preconditions must be strictly construed against applicants seeking administrative dissolution.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Prior to submitting Form STK-2, conduct a mandatory 90-day compliance review of the company's ledger and RoC records to ensure no cross-state registered office shifts or commercial sales occurred. Creditors contesting a strike-off should obtain banking records demonstrating trading within the 3-month window and apply under Section 249(2) for mandatory administrative rejection by the RoC.