9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Companies Act. The petitioners have, therefore, been remiss in not only in ensuring proper filing of the necessary records but also informing the Registrar of Companies of the change in the registered office. In addition, the publication of the fact that the name of the company has been struck off in the official gazette by the Registrar of Companies, which operates as public notice to all concerned, was also ignored by the petitioners. For these reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed subject to payment of ₹ 22,000 as costs to the Registrar of Companies and further costs of ₹ 11,000 to be deposited in the common pool fund of the Official Liquidator. Costs to be paid within three weeks. Consequently, the restoration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the respondent that the procedure prescribed under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under section 560(1), section 560(2), section 560(3) and, ultimately, under section 560(5) were issued, and that the name of the petitioner company was published in the Official Gazette on 23-6-2007 at S. No. 10343. 3. The petitioners state that the petitioner company has been active since incorporation, and has also been maintaining all the requisite documentation, as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In support of this statement, a copy of the balance sheet, as at 31-3-2008, the profit and loss account, as at 31-3-2008, and the Income-tax return for the year ending 2008, have been annexed to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance sheet as at 31-3-2008 and the auditors report in respect thereof was ready to be filed with the respondent that the fact of non-filing of the returns and other documents with the respondent, as well as the fact that the petitioner company s name had been struck off the Register maintained by the respondent, was known to the petitioner company. 7. Counsel for the respondent does not have any objection to the revival of the company, subject to the petitioner filing all outstanding statutory documents, i.e., annual returns for the period 30-9-2001 to 30-9-2008, balance sheets for the period 31-3-2001 to 31-3-2008, along with the filing and additional fee, as applicable on the date of actual filing. The certificates of No Objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same time, since there is the possibility of the company to continue to function and recover its losses, even though it is stated to have run into accumulated losses of Rs. 2,94,018 in the year ending 31-3-2008, as held in Purushottamdass s case ( supra ) therefore, it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent, which struck off the petitioner s name from the Register of Companies, be set aside. 10. I might notice that rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 states, inter alia, as follows : "Unless for any special reasons that the Court shall otherwise order, the order shall direct that the petitioners do pay to the Registrar of Companies his costs of, and occasioned by, the petition." 11. Here, not only h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
