9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to, reactivate the DIN of the Director forthwith, by collecting fine/ penalty, if any, for the lapse of the Director. The Company is directed to file all the statutory document(s) along with prescribed fees/additional fee/fine as decided by Registrar of Companies within 30 days from the date on which the DIN of the director is reactivated - the Registrar of Companies, Kochi is directed to, update their system records with correct status in respect of the Applicant Company and its Directors. Application disposed off. - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) For the Applicant : Shri Philip Mathew, Advocate For the Respondent : No representation ORDER This MA has been filed under Rule 42 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 by Metro Kuries and Loans Private Limited, the Appellant in CA/26/KOB/2020, to activate the DIN No- 01101219 of P. I. Stanley who is the Director of M/s Metro Kuries and Loans Private Limited for the purpose of filing all the defaulted Annual Returns and Financial Statements of the Appellant Company. 2. CA/26/KOB/2020 filed under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration was allowed by this Bench on 25.06.2020 with the following directions: i. The Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the ROC took a stand that since the director is disqualified, his DIN is not allowed to be reactivated on account of the said disqualification. Hence, the Applicant could not to upload the defaulted Annual Returns and Financial Statements with the ROC. Therefore, a temporary activation of DIN of the representative of Company Sri P. I. Stanley who filed the Company Appeal is required for the purpose of restoration of the name of the Applicant Company, so as to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal. 5. The Respondent ROC submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2020 in CA/26/KOB/2020 has ordered the restoration of the name of Applicant Company. It is further stated that this Tribunal further ordered that if the directors are disqualified, then the DIN are not allowed to be activated as they are disqualified . Since, the Applicant Company has complied with the directions of this Tribunal, the Respondent has restored the name of the Company into the Register of Registrar of Companies, Kerala. Now the name of the Applicant Company is active . 6. It is also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 164(2)(a) read with Section 167(1)(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant approached this Tribunal for the said relief. Therefore, this Application is not maintainable in law. It is further stated that Central Government has also framed Companies (Appointment Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 and enforced it with effect from 01.04.2014. 10. The Respondent also stated that as far as filing of financial statements or annual returns are concerned, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, all companies, whether public or private including not-for-profit companies, are legally bound to file the same with the ROC before the due date as stipulated in relevant provisions. Under the Companies Act, 1956, non-filing of Balance Sheets or Annual Returns for any Financial Year by a company, whether public or private including not-for-profit companies, was also an offence punishable under Section 220(3)/92(5) of the Act. It is further submitted that no new statutory obligation is created under Section 164(2), as the liability to file statutory returns already existed under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. The Directors of the Applicant Company have knowledge of the default committed by the Applicant Company in respect of filing of statutory return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y . The aforesaid sentence was consciously omitted to give a misleading version and a different meaning to the order passed by this Tribunal, as there is no reason for making such a deliberate omission after forking out the preceding sentence and deliberately omitting the succeeding sentence from the counter affidavit. 15. The refusal of the Respondent is a deliberate act to defeat the order passed by this Tribunal and the same would automatically attract Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 for which the Applicant is entitled to seek for invoking the said powers of this Tribunal and the said Section does not give immunity to the office of the ROC and any of its officers. The Applicant further stated the question of approaching the Hon ble High Court of Kerala for the illegal wrongful acts done by the Respondent without any authority of law as advised by them in the Counter Affidavit does not arise at all and such a submission is nothing but a call for further litigation and would amount to abuse of the process of the Hon ble High Court by instigating further litigation. It is the solemn duty of every responsible official to avoid unwanted litigation thrust upon the aggrieved par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Affairs- High Court of Telangana FINDINGS: - 19. I have gone through the order dated 25.06.2020 in CA/26/KOB/2020 and Section 424 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 which is reproduced below: - Section 424(3):- Any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending therein, and it shall be lawful for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to send for execution of its orders to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situate; or (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. 20 I have also considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant made under Sections 164 and 167 of the Act, 2013 and perused the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent. The learned counsel quoted the decision in Mukut Pathak Ors Vs Union of India Ors (MANU/DE/3655/2019) a settled case law of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi to show that this Bench have power to order ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
