9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Certificate of Incorporation No. 55-65229 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. The Registrar of Companies, i.e., the respondent herein, struck the petitioner company's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns and balance sheets since incorporation. 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 off the Register maintained by his office. It is stated by counsel for the respondent that the procedure prescribed under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under section 560(1), sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, it is likely that the petitioner did not receive any notice issued by the respondent under section 560, Companies Act, 1956, due to its own default. 5. 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 from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. 6. The petitioner submits that it was unable to file the required statutory documents due to the illness of its Whole Time Director, namely, Mr. Dina Nath Verma, who is stated to have expired in 2001. It is also submitted that after the expiry of Late Mr. Dina Nath Verma, the affairs of the company were neglected, that it was only on 5-4-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, within a period of 20 years, and to 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." 10. Further when a litigation is pending by or against a company, it is only proper that its name be restored to the Register to enable the matter to be carried to its conclusion as has been held by this Court in Indian Explosives Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP No. 185 of 2008, decided on 21-4-2010]. 11. I might notice that Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 states, inter alia, as follows : "Unless for any sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very casual manner and must be deprecated. To my mind such conduct does not display sound and responsible business functioning expected of companies. The 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 [CP. No. 271 of 2009, decided on 16-2-2010; Medtech Pharma India (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP. No. 241 of 2009, decided on 19-4-2010]; and Rajinder Bawa, Director, Baver Suspension (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP No. 406 of 2008, decided on 27-4-2010]. 13. For all these reasons, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
