9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay High Court in PURUSHOTTAMDASS VERSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [ 1984 (4) TMI 247 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] ; it is only proper that the impugned orderof the respondent dated 23.06.2007, which struck off the name of the petitioner from the Register of Companies, be set aside. Looking to the fact that annual returns and balance sheets were not filed for almost twelve years, the primary responsibility for ensuring that proper returns and other statutory documents are filed, in terms of the statute and the rules, remains that of the management. The restoration of the company's name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies will be subject to payment of costs of ₹ 22,000/- to be paid to the common pool fund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that notice dated 31.05.2007 under Section 560(5) for striking off the name of the petitioner from the register maintained by the respondent was given and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 23.06.2007 mentioning the petitioner-company's name at Serial no.1729. 4. The petitioner has, on the other hand, submitted that it has been functioning and carrying on business since its incorporation, and prepared annual accounts and audited the same every year. In support of this statement, the petitioner has relied on its annual accounts for the period 30.03.2002 to 31.03.2013, Balance Sheets with Schedule of fixed assets of the company and profit and loss account for the financial years ending 31.03.2002 to 31.03.2013, copi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner that the present petition is within the period of limitation stipulated by S. 560(6) of Companies Act, 1956. This fact is not denied by the respondent. 8. The petitioner avers that the accounts of the company were prepared and audited every year, and the same is reflected by the annexures attached to the petition. The petitioner-company had engaged the services of a Chartered Accountant to perform the task of filing the statutory documents with the office of the respondent. It is submitted that the chartered accountant failed to file the requisite documents. It is further averred that the petitioner came to know that its name had been struck off from the registerwhen the petitioner-company was unable to upload certain statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Companies, CP No. 241/ 2009;M/sSantaclaus Toys Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar Of Companies, CP 271/2009; M/sDeepsone Non-Ferrous Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar ofCompanies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, CP No. 285/2009; M/sKakku E and P Control Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v. The Registrar ofCompanies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, CP No.409/2008 and M/sSohal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, NCT ofDelhi and Haryana, CP No. 297/2009. 11.Under the facts and circumstances, it is possible that notice in respect of action under S.560 was not sent to the registered office of the company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike off the name of petitioner from the Register maintained by the respondent was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
