9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 55-54845 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. The petitioner herein is Mr. Rajinder Bawa, who is a member as well as a Director of M/s. Baver Suspension Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Registrar of Companies, i.e., the respondent herein, struck the company's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns for the period 30-9-2001 to 30-9-2008, and failure to file balance sheets for the period 31-3-2001 to 31-3-2008. Consequently, the Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the name of the company of the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the limitation period stipulated by section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, i.e., 20 years. 7. The petitioner avers that the accounts of the company were prepared and audited every year, and that the company had engaged the services of the aforesaid Chartered Accountants, i.e., M/s Shaival and Sunil, to perform the task of filing the returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that the aforesaid Chartered Accountants did not file the returns and other necessary documents with the Registrar of Companies and did not reveal this fact to the Directors of the company, who were concentrating on other affairs of the company as business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on has been followed by this Court in Deepsone Non-Ferrous Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana [CP No. 285 of 2009]; Kakku E & P Control (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana [2010] 154 Comp. Cas. 408 (Delhi) and Sohal Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana [2010] 153 Comp. Cas. 466 (Delhi). 10. Looking to the fact that the company is a running company, that its Director has filed this petition within the stipulated limitation period, and to the decision of the Bombay High Court, this petition deserves to be allowed. However, a greater degree of care was certainly required from the company in ensuring statutory compliances. Here, annual returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting from the norm by imposing lower or no costs at all, or even levying further additional costs, depending on the circumstances. 13. As has also been held in Santaclaus Toys (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [2010] 154 Comp. Cas. 412 (Delhi) and in Medtech Pharma India (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP. No. 241 (Delhi) of 2009, dated 19-4-2010], by this Court; the facts and circumstances of this case show that it is not merely a case where the interests of justice and requirements of the statute would be met merely by the payment of costs of the Registrar of Companies. It is difficult to believe that although the company was functioning for eight years, the management was so preoccupied with other matters that they were unable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
