9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors of Respondent No.2 Company, filed Company Petition No.227(ND)/2016 before the NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking restoration of the name of the Respondent No.2, M/s Laj Leasing and Credit Pvt Ltd, on the register of companies maintained by the office of the ROC, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide its impugned order dated 10.07.2019 dismissed the Company Petition No.227(ND)/2016 on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that he is a creditor of the company. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order the appellant, not other four individuals who were petitioners in the company petition, has filed the present appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 praying therein that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e joint family corpus of funds. Appellant stated that with the intent to recover this amount, appellant caused a search to be conducted in the MCA records and came to know that Respondent No.2 company was struck off from the Register of companies in the year 2007. After that appellant sought certain information under RTI Act from ROC office which also confirms that the Respondent No.2 company name has been struck off. Appellant has filed copies of Balance sheets for the year 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1998 which clearly reflects that the amount of Rs. 74,60,000/- as loan to the company. Appellant stated that therefore the appellants are the creditors of Respondent No.2 and entitled to maintain this appeal. Appellant stated that the Respondent N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated on oath that "Company does not have any Assets & Liabilities". Learned counsel for the Appellant further argued that in the suit filed for partition of the joint family estate in the High Court of Delhi, Mr. Gaurav Kapur, who was Respondent No.4 in the said suit, admitted that the amount of Rs. 74,60,000/- was loaned to Respondent No.2 company by late Sh S.L. Kapur from the joint family corpus of funds. Learned counsel for the Appellant further argued that with the intent to recover this amount, appellant caused a search to be conducted in the MzCA records and came to know that Respondent No.2 company was struck off from the Register of companies in the year 2007. After that appellant sought certain information under RTI Act from ROC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Officer order dated 17.3.2016 to prove his argument. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and 4 argued that there is no joint family corpus of Late Sh S.L. Kapur and the appellant was not associated with the Respondent No.2 company and the name of the company was struck off on 31.1.2007. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 4 argued that there was no joint family and the properties/funds of Late Sh S.L. Kapur was his self acquired property and as per his will the same were handed over to Mr. Anil Kapur. 7. We have heard the parties and perused 8. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.2 company's name was struck off on 31.1.2007. We note from the record that the Respondent No.3 and 4 filed Indemnity Bond and Affidav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
