9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinued its name on the register of the ROC. 2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the petition are that the petitioner-company was incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 on 3.7.1995 with its registered office at BJ-133 West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088. The authorised share capital of the company was Rs. 25,00,000/- divided into 2,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the company was Rs. 11,95,300/- divided into 1,19,530 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The company is engaged in production, preparation, manufacture etc. of all types of tyres or semi tyres for all types of vehicles including aeroplane, inner tubes etc. 3. The ROC-respondent str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C in its reply. The address given by Mr. Kamlesh Bajaj is as under: Bengali Square Near Lokhand Wala, G-2 Dreamz Manor FM-4 Scheme No.94, Kanadia Road, Indore (MP) 6. The reason for striking off the name of the petitioner company is non-filing of Balance Sheet and Annual Returns since 1999 which resulted in the belief that the petitioner was not carrying out any business. Notice for striking off was published in the Official Gazette on 23.6.2007. In para 6 of the reply the ROC has further disclosed that from the Profit and Loss Account submitted by the petitioner company from the years 2009 to 2016 no business could be assumed to be transacted except in the year 2009 when sale is shown for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The petitioner comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies: 2. ................ (3) If a company, or any member or creditor or workman thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under sub-section (5) of section 248 may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies, order the name of the company to be restored to the register of companies, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come to the rescue of the petitioner. 11. It is also patent from the record that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
