9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the names of the various companies including the appellant No.2 company. We note that the company is having FDR with the Bank and Performance guarantee has been given and income tax is being deposited on the interest of income. The name of the appellant No.1 company shall be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances - Appellants shall pay costs of ₹ 25,000/- to the Registrar of Companies, Pune within 30 days - Appeal allowed. - Company Appeal (AT)No. 188 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2019 - Justice Jarat Kumar Jain (Member (Judicial), Mr. Balvinder Singh (Member (Technical) And Dr.Ashok Kumar Mishra (Member (Technical) Ms Yogita Bhatia, Company Secretary and Mr. Rohit, CS for Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding 31st March, 2014 to 31st March, 2017 and the company did not spend any amount towards Employee Benefit Expenses and the fixed assets of the company is Nil; Tangible Assets Nil, therefore, the action taken by the ROC is justified and the Bench did not find any ground to interfere with action of striking off by ROC. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the company have a Fixed Deposit Receipt with Bank of Maharashtra amounting to ₹ 1,50,00,000/- (Rs. One Crores and Fifty lacs only) with Bank of Maharashtra on which bank guarantee was issued in favour of Atal Indore City Transport Services Ltd and the same is valid up till 11th November, 2017 is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 and the company did not spend any amount towards Employee Benefit expenses for these financial years and Fixed Assets of the company is Nil, tangible assets Nil. Learned counsel for the Respondent stated that the ROC has rightly taken a decision to strike off the name of the appellant company. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments admitted that they have not filed the statutory returns for more than two years as per Companies Act, 2013. We also note that the appellant company on receipt of STK-1 notice from ROC, vide its reply dated 29th March, 2017 intimated the ROC that inadvertently regulatory filings for the year ending 31st March, 2015 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s subsection, the assets of the company shall be made available for the payment or discharge of all its liabilities and obligations even after the date of the order removing the name of the company from the register of companies. However, learned counsel for the Respondent in its written submissions as para 9 (Page 3) has stated that the Respondent has not received any reply from the company and its directors. We note that the Appellant has replied vide its letter dated 29.3.2017 (Page 290 of the appeal) and the said letter has the acknowledgement of ROC, Pune. Therefore, it can not be said that the appellant has not replied. Further there is nothing on record that the compliance of Section 248(6) of the Companies Act, 2016 has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
