9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbefore, the petitioner No.1 Company is the owner of land ad-measuring 10 bigha- 4 kathas - 19 lechas at Bongaigaon District. Hence, this appears to be a fit case wherein this Court may take judicial notice of the ever rising market value of land. In this regard, I find support from the case of Rattan Arya V. State of Tamil Nadu, [ 1986 (4) TMI 346 - SUPREME COURT ] . The ownership of such a big estate is indicative of the fact that if there is no owner of any land, there is every likelihood of the said land will waste away by encroachment or otherwise or it will become a den for anti-social activities. Fraudulent sale of land in our Country is not uncommon, which would be revealed from the perusal of innumerable case reports where land involved in the suit or proceeding was illegally and fraudulently transferred. This application deserves to be allowed. - Co. Pet. 24 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA For the Petitioners : Mr. R. Dubey, Mr. P.K. Garodia, : Mr. S. Agarwal, Mr. A.B. Kayastha. For the Respondents : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Adv. : Mrs. P. Gogoi, Mr. A. Goswami, : Mr. N. Baruah. ORDER JUDGMENT AN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not intentional and that on restoration of the said Company in back in the register, the petitioners would comply with the requirement of law in this regard. 4) The respondents No.2 to 8 have got themselves impleaded in the present proceeding pursuant to the order dated 26.05.2014 passed in M.C. No. 3293/13. The said respondents had filed their affidavit- in- opposition in the matter. It has been stated therein that the Petitioner No.1 Company was formed by 19 promoters, each investing ₹ 15,000/- aggregating a sum of ₹ 2,85,000/- and not ₹ 3,33,500/- as projected by the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 had only two Directors, one being the respondent No.2 and the other being one D.J. Khound (since expired). The said Company could not operate successfully and it was no longer viable and thus, became defunct and the last valid returns was filed in the year 1989 with no Annual General Meeting or Extra-ordinary General Meeting called thereafter. Hence, no one had any authority to file any returns on behalf of the Petitioner No.1 Company in the year 2009 as claimed. There was no reason for keeping alive a defunct Company, citing technical grounds and the sham e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1956. It is urged that from the perusal of the copy of impugned notification/ order dated 08.08.2007 (Annexure-2), it is apparent that the mailing address given was FELPACT PVT LTD, ASSAM, Assam, INDIA , which cannot be the correct postal address by any stretch of imagination, but from the Company Master Details (Annexure-3) as downloaded from the web-portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the address of the registered office was shown as H/O DP KHOUND, PO. DHALIGAON, DHALIGAON, ASSAM, INDIA, which is self explanatory that statutory notices which was required to be given to the Petitioner No.1 Company before striking it off was issued in incorrect address, for which, the impugned notification/ order dated 08.08.2007 was not sustainable. In support of his argument and stand taken in the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of (i) Shitiz Metals Limited V. Registrar of Companies ors., (2013) 202 DLT 289: (2013) 0 Supreme (Del) 777, and (ii) PPI Enterprises Private Limited Ors. V. Registrar of Companies, (2015) 0 Supreme (Del) 3445. 6) Per contra, vehemently opposing the present application, the learned Counsel for the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register; and the [Tribunal] may, by the order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. 8) Therefore, on the plain reading of the said provisions it is crystal clear that the Company, or any member, or any creditor can present an application within a period of 20 years from the publication made in the official Gazette of the notice to strike out the name of such Company from the register of the Registrar of Companies and that any of the above referred three category of persons can maintain an application to restore the name of the Company in the register of the Registrar of Companies. The said provisions, amongst others, also permit the restoration of a Company not only i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.1 in an incorrect address, as reflected in the said notice (Annexure-2) itself, which is different from the entry of address reflected in the Company Master Details (Annexure-3) as downloaded from the web-portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Hence, the impugned notification dated 08.08.2007, issued by the Registrar of Companies, Shillong in the incorrect address of the Petitioner No.1 is not sustainable either on facts available on record or in law. 12) Moreover, it has not been brought to the notice of this court that the impugned notification dated 08.08.2007 was published in the Official Gazette, which is the starting point of limitation of 20 years within which one is required to approach this Court for restoration of the name of Company in the register of the jurisdictional Registrar of Companies. Thus, even if it is assumed that the notification was published on 08.08.2007, the present application is found to be presented well within the prescribed period of limitation. 13) As regards the challenge to the locus of the petitioner No.2, I am of the considered opinion that irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner No.2 was competent to represent the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, the name of the Petitioner No.1 Company, i.e. Felpact Private Limited is ordered to be restored to its original status, as if the name of the Company had not been struck off. 16) I direct the Company to file all statutory documents with the Registrar of Companies, Shillong, within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date on which its name is restored in the register of Companies, by the Registrar of Companies. The Petitioner No.2, who claims to be the Director of the Petitioner No.1 Company is directed to personally ensure compliance of this. If any further statutory formalities are required to be done pursuant to restoration of the name of the Petitioner No.1 Company in the Register of the Registrar of Companies, Shillong, the same shall be done within the aforesaid period of 45 (forty five) days from the date on which the name is restored. This includes the formalities under the Companies Act, 1956 (since repealed) and Companies Act, 2013 and the applicable Rules. 17) The restoration of the Company's name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Shillong will be subject to payment of cost of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid to the common poo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
