9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1266 - HC - Companies LawRestoration of the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana - Held that - As relying on decision of this Court in Siddhant Garg and Anr vs. Registrar of Companies and Anr. 2012 (3) TMI 92 - DELHI HIGH COURT it cannot be said that where the company s name has been struck off on an application filed under Simplified Exit Scheme, the company cannot be restored. I In view of the foregoing it is of the view that it would be just and proper to order restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent. Upon the Petitioner Company filing all the statutory documents i.e. Annual Returns and Balance Sheets till date, along with the prescribed filing fee and additional fee in compliance with all the statutory requirements, the name of the Petitioner Company, its directors and members shall, stand restored to the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent, in accordance with Section 560(6) of the Act, as if the name of the Petitioner Company had not been struck off.
Issues Involved:
Petition for restoration of company name under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. Analysis: 1. Background and Incorporation of Petitioner Company: - The petition was filed by M/s Intec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. - The company was incorporated on 27.12.2010 with specific business objectives related to industrial equipment and appliances. 2. Financial Status and Application for Removal: - Due to market depression in 2011-2013, the company could not commence operations as planned, leading to a lack of capital infusion and non-receipt of subscribed capital. - The company filed an application for removal of its name under the Fast Track Exit Scheme, 2011, due to being defunct without assets or liabilities. 3. Grounds for Restoration and Change in Business Environment: - The company sought restoration citing a change in the business environment, with a focus on ease of doing business leading to growth opportunities, specifically in the air-conditioning market. - Plans to start a manufacturing unit for roof-mounted air conditioners for railways were mentioned. 4. Board Resolution and Respondent's Reply: - The Board of Directors passed a resolution in 2016 seeking revival of the company. - The Respondent did not object to the restoration but requested filing of all annual returns and balance sheets along with prescribed fees. 5. Legal Provisions and Court's Decision: - Section 560(6) of the Act allows restoration of a struck-off company if it was carrying on business or if restoration is deemed just by the Court. - The Court considered the petition within the limitation period and referred to a previous case where restoration was allowed for a company struck off under a similar scheme. - Based on the facts and circumstances, the Court ordered restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. 6. Order and Compliance Requirements: - The company was directed to file all statutory documents and fees for restoration. - Upon compliance, the company, directors, and members would be restored to the Register as if the name had not been struck off. 7. Disposition and Compliance Procedure: - The company was instructed to provide a certified copy of the order to the Respondent for further action in accordance with the Companies Act and Rules. - No costs were awarded, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
