9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 979 - HC - Companies LawRestoration of name of the petitioner to the Register under Section 560(6) - Held that - The only objection raised by the Registrar of Companies is that in case, an order is passed for revival of the company, the same shall be subject to the filing of all overdue documents, statutory filing, namely, Annual Return and Balance Sheet from the date of default by the petitioner company with the respondent. Therefore, if the petitioner is able to file all the overdue documents as called for by the Registrar of Companies, it is for the Registrar of Companies to consider as to whether the company can be revived. Therefore, at this juncture, the question of issuing a positive direction for reviving the company does not arise and this Court can only direct the Registrar of Companies to consider the application or the request made by the petitioner for revival of the company subject to statutory compliances as may be required by the Registrar of the Companies. In the result, this Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Registrar of Companies along with a copy of this Order seeking revival of the company and if such application is filed, the Registrar of the Companies shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the rules framed thereunder within a period of four weeks from the date of filing such application complete in all respects.
Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in the Register under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Validity of striking off the company's name from the Register. 3. Request for transfer of leasehold right and No Objection Certificate (NOC) from PIPDIC. 4. Compliance with statutory requirements for revival of the company. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought restoration of their company's name in the Register under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company was initially incorporated as a Private Limited Company in Tamil Nadu and later changed its name. The company ceased operations due to lack of interest from directors and was struck off from the Register on 27.06.2011. The petitioner requested restoration to facilitate the transfer of leasehold rights, as they were unable to submit necessary documents before the strike-off due to the demise of a director. The Deputy Registrar's counter affidavit highlighted the company's failure to respond to notices, leading to the strike-off. 2. PIPDIC, the State Owned Corporation managing the leasehold property, opposed the restoration, citing the company's prolonged inactivity and failure to comply with lease conditions. PIPDIC issued an order resuming possession of the property due to the company's non-utilization and lack of response to requests for documentation. PIPDIC contended that the company's strike-off rendered the lease invalid, as the company misrepresented its legal status and suppressed relevant information. PIPDIC emphasized the company's failure to comply with directives regarding director induction and documentation submission. 3. The court acknowledged PIPDIC's concerns regarding the company's conduct and the property's status. While the court refrained from adjudicating on PIPDIC's order, it focused on the company's entitlement to revival. The Registrar of Companies did not object to revival within the statutory period but emphasized compliance with overdue filings. The court directed the petitioner to apply for revival with the Registrar, subject to fulfilling statutory requirements within four weeks. The court clarified that its decision did not address PIPDIC's order validity, leaving parties to pursue appropriate forums for related disputes. 4. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to adhere to statutory compliance for revival, indicating that the Registrar would assess the application based on complete documentation. The court's decision did not support continuing interim orders post-petition disposal, aligning with established legal principles. The judgment focused on the procedural aspects of company revival, underscoring the importance of statutory compliance and due process in such matters.
|
