9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding as on 2005 or it has been paid to somebody who was not entitled to it because there are no records since 1998. Since the company has no assets and the company has not filed any return from 1998 onwards, therefore, it would be futile to restore the name of the company. Appeal disposed off. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 267 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - Mr. Balvinder Singh Member (Technical), Justice Jarat Kumar Jain Member (Judicial) And Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Angad Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Kapur For the Respondent : Mr Neeraj Kr Gupta, Advocates JUDGEMENT MR. BALVINDER SINGH, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993 (Page 43 of the appeal) of Respondent No.2. Shri S.L. Kapur died intestate in the year 1994. Appellant stated that he has 6.7% share in Joint family property and the principal amount due is ₹ 5 lacs. Appellant stated that the Respondent No.3 and 4 applied for the striking off of the Respondent No.2 from the Register of Companies and stated on oath that no liabilities existed as of 30.06.2005 and the company was not doing any business for the 10 years prior to the strike off application in the year 2005. These respondents have filed affidavits and indemnity bonds to this effect. Appellant filed a suit for partition of the joint family estate in the High Court of Delhi. Appellant stated that in the said suit, Mr. Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Hon ble High Court, Sh Anil Kapur has denied the receipt of these funds, which was paid to him before 30.06.2005 as per the application for strike off filed with the ROC by Respondent No.3 and 4. Therefore, the appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order and seeks restoration of the company. 4. Respondent No.3 to 4 did not file any reply but decided to argue the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Respondent No.3 and 4 applied for the striking off of the Respondent No.2 from the Register of Companies and these respondents stated on oath that no liabilities existed as of 30.06.2005 and the company was not doing any business for the 10 years prior to the strike off application in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ists no liability whereas Mr Anil Kumar informed the Delhi Police that he has received the amount of ₹ 74,60,000/- from Respondent No.2 in 2007. Appellant again stressed that the Respondent N.3 and 4 have filed a fabricated application for striking off the company. Appellant also argued that the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, South-East, Saket Court has found the signature of Sh S.L. Kapur on his purported Will to be forged. Appellant argued that in separate proceedings before Hon ble High Court, Sh Anil Kapur has denied the receipt of these funds, which was paid to him before 30.06.2005 as per the application for strike off filed with the ROC by Respondent No.3 and 4. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l claims and liabilities which have not come to our notice upto this stage even after the name of the company has been struck off in terms of Section 560 of the Companies Act,1956. We also note that the Respondent No.2 company has not filed any balance sheet after 1998. On seeing the balance sheets which have been filed by the appellant, we note that the amount of ₹ 74,60,000/- has been reflected in the Balance Sheets as unsecured loan . Therefore, it can not be said that it was a deposit. We also note that the Respondent No.3 and 4 has given an affidavit and indemnity in the year 2005, while applying for striking off the name of the company, that the Respondent No.2 company has no assets and liabilities and also undertook to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
