9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns. The name of the company, its directors and members shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of Companies, as if the name of the company had not been struck off, in accordance with section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. - COMPANY PETITION NO. 170 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2010 - SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. P.K. Mittal for the Petitioner. V.K. Gupta for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s petition. 4. It is alleged that the company did not receive any show-cause notice issued by the respondent in this regard, as the occupants/tenants of the property adjacent to the petitioner company s had somehow colluded with the postman to prevent any correspondence from reaching the petitioner. 5. It is also 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 from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. 6. The petitioner avers that due to various factors, such as the illnesses of its directors, considerable delay in the completion of construction of the company s building, paucity of fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o give them an opportunity of carrying on the business only after the company Judge is satisfied that such restoration is necessary in the interests of justice." 9. Looking to the fact that the company is stated to be a better position commercially since 2006; that it is solvent and has assets in excess of Rs. 1 crore; and that it showed some profit for the financial year ending 31-3-2009, it appears that there is the possibility of the company to continue functioning, and as held in Purushottamdas case ( supra ), therefore, it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent, which struck off the company s name from the Register of Companies, be set aside. 10. I might notice that rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-filing of returns and balance sheets with the respondent had also made it impossible for any interested party to find out about the financial health of the company over a span of fourteen years. Earlier decisions on the same lines are Santaclaus Toys (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [2010] 154 Comp. Cas. 412 (Delhi) Medtech Pharma India (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP. No. 241 of 2009, dated 19-4-2010] and Rajinder Bawa, Director, Baver Suspension (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP. No. 406 of 2008, dated 27-4-2010]. 12. For all these reasons, the restoration of the company s name to the Register maintained by the respondent will be subject to the payment of Rs. 1,00,000 as exemplary costs, payable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
