9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies due to defaults in statutory compliances.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioner company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had its name struck off the Register by the Registrar of Companies for failure to file annual returns and balance sheets from 1999-2000 to 2006-2007. The procedure under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, including issuance of notices and publication in the Official Gazette. There was a discrepancy in the name published in the Gazette, which was clarified as an error in the electronic records. The petitioner alleged not receiving any show cause notice but the address on record indicated proper service. 2. The petitioner contended that it had been active since incorporation, providing evidence of operational activities through receipts of factory license fees and insurance premiums. The statutory documentation, including audited accounts, was maintained, but the filing responsibility was entrusted to a Chartered Accountant firm which failed to submit the necessary documents. The petitioner became aware of its name being struck off only in March 2009. 3. The respondent did not object to the revival of the company, subject to the petitioner filing all outstanding statutory documents and paying applicable fees. Certificates of 'No Objection' from the Directors were submitted. Reference was made to a Bombay High Court case emphasizing the purpose of Section 560(6) to revive companies within 20 years for the interests of justice. 4. Despite the lapse in ensuring statutory compliances, the Court acknowledged the functional status of the company, the timely filing of the petition, and the precedent set by the Bombay High Court. The Court deemed the petition deserving of allowance based on these factors. 5. The Court highlighted Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, regarding costs to be paid to the Registrar of Companies. It noted the discretion of the Court to deviate from the norm in cost allocation based on the circumstances of the case. In this instance, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 75,000 to the common pool fund of the Official Liquidator and an additional Rs. 25,000 to the respondent, with a deadline for payment within three weeks. 6. The restoration of the petitioner company's name to the Register was contingent upon fulfilling all legal requirements, including payment of outstanding fees and completion of formalities. The company, its directors, and members would be reinstated as if the name had not been struck off, in accordance with Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent was granted liberty to take penal action against the company for non-compliance with Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956.
|
