9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority clothed with a power is bound to exercise the same when it is called upon to exercise that. The disuse of that power is equally contemptuous as abuse or misuse of power. In the absence of a denial with regard to Ext. P3, I think the petitioner is perfectly justified in asking for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext. P3 and to take appropriate action thereon in terms of section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 by invoking the power under section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 - O.P. NO. 39428 OF 2002 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2009 - C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. P.B. Sahasranaman and K. Jagadeesh for the Appellant. Prakash Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... became defunct. However, no documents were produced showing issuance of any such intimation. While so, the petitioner received Ext. P2 dated 11-6-2000. Along with Ext. P2 a copy of the Company Law Settlement Scheme, 2000 was also forwarded. It is stated therein that the scheme would be in operation for a limited period of three months from 1-6-2000 to 31-8-2000 and that it permits the defaulting companies to file all pending documents on payment of lump sum amount based on the period of delay in terms of the table given thereunder. On receipt of Ext. P2, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P3 dated 5-7-2000. In Ext. P3 it was specifically stated that the company could not commence its business and therefore requested the Registrar of Companie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registers. In Ext. P4, though it is a Nil Return, the aforesaid request was reiterated. However, the respondent who has the power to strike the name of the company off the registers did not take any action in spite of the receipt of Exts. P3 and P4. A perusal of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 would show that it is well within the powers of the respondent to strike off the name of a defunct company from the registers. It virtually casts a duty on him to exercise his power under section 560 when he was called upon to exercise that power. 5. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it has been specifically stated that the company in which the petitioner was the Managing Director had filed its annual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to Ext. P3, I think the petitioner is perfectly justified in asking for a direction to the respondent to consider Ext. P3 and to take appropriate action thereon in terms of section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. 7. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 by invoking the power under section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. This shall be done by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that after passing such an order, a copy of the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Considering the fact that this Writ Petition has been admitted in the year 2002 and a stay of all further proceedings pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
