9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand published in Gazette of India No. 40 dated 6-12-2007. 3. The case of the petitioner-company is that after its incorporation on 23-2-1990, it was carrying on its business of executing the works contract under various departments of the Government of Bihar including Water Resources Department, Minor Irrigation Department and the Road Construction Department. It is also its case that the annual returns including the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account were being filed regularly before the Registrar of Companies between the financial years 1989-90 to 2002-03 but the same could not be filed from the year 2003-04 onwards as the same had been entrusted to a chartered accountant who had fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that the company, not being a defunct company but carrying on its business continuously since its incorporation by executing the works of different departments of the Government of Bihar, in proof of which the balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts up to the year ending 31-3-2008, have already been filed which, according to learned counsel, clearly show that the company is in operation and for the said reason alone it is submitted by learned counsel that it is a fit case for restoring the name of the company in the Register of Companies. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that before striking off the name of the company from the Register of Companies, the Registrar of Companies has failed to comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary. Admittedly, no such publication has been made in the Official Gazette nor any notice sent by registered post as required by sub-section (3) of section 560 of the Act. 9. Moreover, it is evident from the materials on the record that the petitioner-company is not a defunct company but continuously carrying on its business although there appears to have been a serious omission in not filing its annual returns after the financial year ending March, 1999 according to the Registrar of Companies and admittedly, since the year 2003-04 according to the petitioner-company itself. 10. Be that as it may, since there has been non-compliance of mandatory requirement of section 560(3), it is evident that the order dated 17-9-2007, of the Registrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
