9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands in as much as it has been unfairly claimed that the annual returns was filed up to the year ending 2003. Otherwise on the basis of the record the ROC has pointed out that the last returns was filed in the year 1998. On that account also the petitioner would lose the right of obtaining any relief nay even the right of hearing. Moreover the so-called resolution attached with the petition (annexure P-2) is surrounded with doubts as the address of Shri Kamlesh Bajaj is entirely different than the one available in the record of the ROC. It would further fortify the view that the company has no business transaction. As a sequel to the above discussion this petition fails and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he register on account of default in statutory compliances. The name of the petitioner-company was struck off vide Official Gazette Notification dated 31.5.2007 at S.No.983 (annexure P-3). The claim of the petitioner is that the M/s K. Bajaj Rubber Pvt. Ltd. is active since its inception and has prepared its Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account and that it has been filing the same with the ROC up to 2003. A copy of the draft Annual Returns from the financial years 2008 to 2016 has been placed on record. 4. The ROC has filed its reply and has disclosed that the company has not filed any statutory documents i.e. Balance Sheet and Annual Returns since 1999 which contravene the provisions of section 159/ 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Income Tax Returns only for the year 2008-2009 which show that the company is not carrying out any business as the time of striking off its name in May, 2007. The name of the petitioner company has been struck off by following the procedure laid down by Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the record is not traceable in the office of ROC. The notice issued under section 560(5) has been placed on record (Annexure B). 7. A rejoinder has also been filed reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner and claiming that it could not file its annual returns w.e.f financial year ending 2003 and that it has not received any show-cause notice contemplated by the statutory provisions. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal may, by the order, give such other directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that any person aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248 is competent to file an appeal to the National Company Law Tribunal. If a company, or any member or creditor feels aggrieved, they would also be competent to file an appeal against the order of the ROC before the expiry of twenty years from the date of publication of order in the official gazette. Sub-section 3 of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
