9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56 seeking restoration of the name of the Respondent No.2 company M/S. Laj Leasing and Credit Private Limited on the Register of Companies maintained by the office of the ROC, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. Initially the appellants had filed the present application u/ s 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Hon 'ble High Court of Delhi seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner company on the Register of Companies maintained by the office of the ROC, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. Subsequently, in terms of the notification Regd. No. D.L.-33004/99 dated 07.12.2016, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and in particular, Clause 3 thereof, the present petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act 1956, stands transferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Respondent No.'s 3 and 4 and the assets of Respondent No.2 were in the complete control of Mr. Anil Kapur and the same were siphoned off and misappropriated. 7. It is contended that Late Shri S. L. Kapur died intestate in the year 1994. Upon his demise, Ms. Nupur Kapur, his granddaughter was unlawfully inducted as a director in Respondent No 2. Thereafter Mrs. Kanwal Kapur and Mrs. Nupur Kapur applied under the aforementioned scheme for the striking off of the Respondent No. 2 from the Register of Companies. Both Respondents have infact filed affidavits and indemnity bonds to this effect. Copies of the affidavit and indemnity bond executed by Mrs. Kanwal Kapur along with true typed copies and copies of the affidavit and indemnity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r also been confirmed by Respondent No. 1 to Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Kapur vide a RTI response dated 24.08.2009 bearing no. RTI/2009-10/Misc/575. Information reflected on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs also reflects the status of Respondent No.2 as 'strike off. 10. It is further stated that the Petitioners are creditors of Respondent No.2, and who have legitimate dues/ claims against Respondent No.2. Cumulatively, a principal sum of Rs. 74,60,000/- is owed to the joint family corpus by Respondent No.2. This is also evident from the balance sheets filed by Respondent No.2 with the MCA. Thereafter, no monies have been returned to the joint family corpus of funds by Respondent No.2. Therefore, on the basis of the share of ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Respondent No. 1 i.e. ROC has filed its reply and submitted that the respondent no.2 company M/S. Laj Leasing and Credit Private Limited applied for striking off its name from the Register of Companies by filing an application under SES Scheme, 2005. The said application was duly accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that the company has not carried on, any business or the company did some business for a period up to a date (which should be specified) and then discontinued its operations, as the case may be, and has no assets or liabilities and indemnity bond to the effect that should there be any liabilities on the company, such liabilities will be met in full by the applicants, even after the name of the company is struck off fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A Copy of the order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi has been placed on record. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. 17. The provision concerning restoration of the name of the company is contained in section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The relevant provisions read as follows: (6) If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the Court, on an application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en we apply the aforesaid statutory parameters to the facts of the present case it can be seen that none of the above conditions have been satisfied. It is pertinent to mention here that the basis on which Petitioners are seeking restoration of the name of Respondent No. 2 Company, i.e. the amount borrowed by the Mr. S.L. Kapur already stands bequeathed to one of the legal heirs of Mr. S.L. Kapur and the same is already stands paid by Respondent No. 2 Company. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is seen that the appellant has failed to prove that he is a creditor of the company as documents on record prove that the arnount borrowed by the company from deceased Mr. S.L. Kapur has already been paid to a legal heir of deceased and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
