9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the letter of allotment of the shares. After the company has accepted the transfer, then it is required to enter the name of the transferee in the register of the companies. It is, thereafter that proper information is sent to the Registrar of Companies and the name of the transferee formally stands registered as a shareholder. In the reply filed by the Registrar of Companies-Respondent no. 2 it has not been revealed that at any stage petitioner acquired the share or uploaded on the website of the Register or submitted the same personally so as to constitute them either members of the respondent no. 1 company. The petitioners as such have not been able to show any document to claim their locus standi to be the director of member of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Companies Act, 1956), having its registered office at A 831, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi (CIN:U55701DL1990PTC041302) the name of which, as per the data available on the site of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, has been struck down by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi off its Register w.e.f. 31.05.2007. Facts in brief as averred and claimed can be culled out from the Petition and based on the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners by their Learned Counsel are as follows: 3. The petitioners used to be Directors of the Respondent No. 1 Company since 12.06.1996. The Petitioners collectively held 10802 equity shares since 12-06-1996 constituting 100% shareholding of the Respondent No. 1 Company. 4. The father of the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed the sons agreed to resolve this matter, as the last wish of the father of the Petitioners was that a hotel be built by them in Mussoorie. The Petitioners father eventually passed away in 2014. 7. After the death of the Petitioners' father, the Petitioners, found out that the Respondent No. 1 Company has been struck off and they had no knowledge about the same. The Petitioners submitted that the action of Registrar above is highly prejudicial to their interest. Hence, under these circumstances the name of the Respondent No. 1 Company is to be restored to the register in the Registrar of Companies, NCT of New Delhi and Haryana. 8. The Registrar of Companies has filed a detailed reply stating that the respondent No. 1 had not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d because of such family disputes no annual filing was done in respect of Respondent No. 1 Company after the Company was bought in the year 1996 by the father of the Petitioners. However, Petitioners undertake to file all pending documents with Registrar of Company after restoration of the name of the Company. The Petitioners have also stated that though the balance sheet for the year 2006 was prepared and is also annexed with the Company Petition as Annexure A3 (Colly), it could not be filed with the Respondent No. 2 as certain disputes arose between the members of the family, which disrupted the proper and smooth functioning of the affairs of the Respondent No. 1 Company. Petitioners stated that great injustice would be caused to the shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Companies was initiated and it was struck off. The factum of striking off was duly notified and published in the Official Gazette of India on 23-06-2007. 12. In order to ascertain whether the petitioners have any right to seek revival of respondent no. 1 company, it would first be profitable to examine the provisions of Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, which read as under: (6) If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the Tribunal, on an application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uck off from the register of the Registrar of Companies the petitioners do not figure in the list of shareholder or creditor or director etc. 15. The argument based on the copies of the share certificate attached with the replication would not advance the case of the petitioners because there is no evidence that share transfer has taken place by following the procedure laid down under Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the requirement of Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, a company is barred from registering transfer of shares unless a proper instrument of transfer duly stamped and executed by or on behalf of the transferor and by or on behalf of the transferee is presented to the company. It must specify the name, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
