9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2018 passed by the National Company Law tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata whereby dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of striking of the name of the appellant company from Register of Companies, West Bengal. 2. Appellant No.1, Jaishree Dealcomm Pvt Ltd, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having it registered office at Mercantile Building, 9/2, Lal Bazar Street, A Block, 1st floor, Kolkata. Appellant No.2 is a holding company of Appellant No.1. Appellants No.3 and 4 are directors of Appellant No.1 company. Appellants were served notice under Section 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 on 22.3.2017. Thereafter a public notice was issued on 7.4.2017 and on 9.6.2017 the company's name was struck off from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, inadvertently the company failed to file its audited financial statement and annual returns since the financial year 2013-14 onwards which are annexed with the Memo of Appeal. From the Balance Sheets it is apparent that the Appellant No.1 is carrying on business. Learned ROC has not complied the proper procedure and has not served the notice with the appellant No.3 and 4, hence the order of ROC is liable to be quashed and the name of the company be restored to its original number. 6. Learned Dy. ROC, West Bengal submits that it is not pleaded that Mr. Dinesh Kanti Lal Rathi is director of Appellant No.2 company and he can maintain the appeal being a director of shareholder company i.e. appellant No.2. It is also submitted that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in support filed the Auditor Reports and financial statement for the year ended 31st March, 2014 to 31st March, 2017 (Annexure A-6 at Page 79 to 146). We have gone through these reports. It is apparent that the appellant company is carrying on its business continuously. Therefore, the order of striking of name of the company from the register of companies is certainly prejudicial to the shareholders of the company. The order is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 11. From the above discussions and observations we have come to the conclusion that it would be just that the name of the company is directed to be restored. The following orders/directions are passed:- (i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside. The name of Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
