9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (NCLT in short) whereby the Company Petition was dismissed on 13th April, 2018. 2. The appellant, original petitioner, is a company incorporated on 5.12.1991 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Company limited by shares and having its Registered Office at Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu. The main object of the company are as follows:- a) To encourage the members to save money by making easy and periodical subscription. b) To receive deposits from its members at favourable and reasonable interest rates. c) To invest the moneys received from the members to their benefits without doing the Banking business as defined under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. i) In immovable properties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies due to the alleged defaults in statutory compliances namely failure to file Financial Statements and Annual Returns for the Financial Years 2010-11 to 2015-16. The same was published in the Gazette of India dated 15th-21st July, 2017 in Page No.14800 of Gazette of India under S.No.12077 (Para 3, Page 1 of Reply). The appellant vide letter dated 18th August, 2017 represented to the ROC to revive the company and allow it to function. 4. Being aggrieved by the said action of the ROC, the appellant filed a company petition before the NCLT stating herein that the defaults are not deliberate and not with a view to defraud anyone. The appellant further stated that they were under impression that statutory compliance have been done. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that the appellant company has not filed Balance Sheet, statutory returns and Annual Returns upto date. Respondent therefore, initiated action under Section 248 of the Companies Act for striking off the name of the appellant. The appellant company was duly served a notice and after following due process of law the appellant company name was struck off and was published in the Gazette of India dated 15th -21st July, 2017 in page No.14800 of Gazette of India under S.No.12077. 6. After hearing the parties the Learned NCLT passed the impugned order dated 13.4.2018. Relevant portion of the impugned order is as under: "xxxx It has been stated in the objections that the applicant company was incorporated during the year 1991, and the Bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit and proper. 8. The appellant submitted that the striking off a company can be done only after following certain steps as per Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant submitted that the Registrar has not met the conditions as mentioned in Section 248 of the Act. The appellant further submitted that the Registrar of Companies cannot resort to an action under Section 252 unless and until the procedure contemplated under Section 248(1) is complied with. 9. The appellant submitted that he was not afforded any reasonable opportunity of being heard before the action was taken by the Respondent and the said action of the Respondent is clearly violative of principles of natural justice. 10. The appellant submitted that the observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financials years and has not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of the dormant company under Section 455. The Respondent further stated that the appellant was given thirty days' time to send his representation alongwith relevant documents. It was further directed unless a cause to the contrary is shown within the period, the name of the appellant company shall be liable to be removed from the register of companies. The Respondent stated that no such representation was received from the appellant. 14. The Respondent stated that the removal of names of companies from the Register of Companies, publication of the said notice was given in bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice has been complied with. 19. The next issue raised by the appellant is that the appellant is carrying on the business and the Respondent has wrongly struck off appellant name from the register of companies. 20. We have gone through the record and found that the appellant has not filed Balance Sheet and Annual Returns for the financial year 2011 onwards and its directors ought to have filed statutory returns in compliance of provisions of the Companies Act. In the absence of any material being placed by appellant before the ROC, we fail to understand how ROC would know if the company is doing any business. 21 The other issue raised by the appellant is that the default in filing the returns was a result of lack of legal awar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
