9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. The Registrar of Companies, i.e the respondent herein, struck the company‟s name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns for the period 30.09.2001 to 30.09.2008 and failure to file balance sheets for the period 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2008. Consequently, the Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the name of the company off the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. It is stated by counsel for the respondent that the procedure prescribed under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under S.560(1), S.560(2), S.560(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in turn, caused further lapses in statutory compliances by the petitioners. 5. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the limitation period stipulated by S.560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, i.e. 20 years. 6. The petitioner avers that the accounts of the company were prepared and audited every year, and that the petitioner company‟s secretarial staff was to perform the task of filing the returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that the company‟s secretarial staff did not file the returns and other necessary documents with the Registrar of Companies and did not reveal this fact to the Directors of the company. It is further submitted that it was only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling Mills Pvt Ltd v Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, CP No. 285/2009; M/s Kakku E and P Control Pvt Ltd Anr v The Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, CP No. 409/2008 and M/s Sohal Agencies Pvt Ltd v Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, CP No. 297/2009. 9. Looking to the facts, it is possible that notice in respect of action under S.560, Companies Act, 1956, was not sent to the registered office of the petitioner company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike the petitioner‟s name off the Register of Companies, was not satisfied. At the same time, the petitioner company is stated to be a functioning one, its Director has filed this petition w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
