9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectors, as well as those of the shareholders, to the restoration of the name of the company to the Register maintained by the respondent, have been placed on record as well. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be allowed. The restoration of the company’s name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies will be subject to the completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late deposit of statutory documents. - COMPANY PETITION NO. 373 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2010 - SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. Rajender Yadav for the Petitioner. V.K. Gupta for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed under section 560 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also been maintaining all the requisite documentation, as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In support of this statement, the audited accounts of the company for the year ending 31-3-2008, a copy of the balance sheet, as at 31-3-2008, the Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31-3-2008, as well as auditors reports in this regard, have been annexed to this petition. It is alleged that the Annual Report of the petitioner-company for the financial year 2004-05 was prepared, but was not filed with the respondent due to a clerical mistake, and that the petitioners remained under the impression that the same had been filed. This Annual Report for the financial year 2004-05 has also been annexed to the petition. 5. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm the task of filing the returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted the returns and other necessary documents were not filed with the Registrar of Companies "due to some mistake of the CA". It is further submitted that it was only sometime in 2007, that the fact of non-filing of the returns and other documents with the respondent, as well as the fact that the petitioner No. 1 s name had been struck off the Register maintained by the respondent, was known to the petitioners. It is alleged that annual returns for the financial year ending 31-3-2006 were filed with the respondent, and that the same was ignored by the respondent. It is further alleged that the company could not file its annual returns for the year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strike off the name of petitioner No. 1 from the Register maintained by the respondent, was not satisfied. At the same time, the company is stated to be a functioning one, and looking to the ratio of Purushottamdas case ( supra ); it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent, which struck off the name of petitioner No. 1 from the Register of Companies, be set aside. 11. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be allowed. The restoration of the company s name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies will be subject to the completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late deposit of statutory documents. The name of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
