9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi and Haryana. 2. The Registrar of Companies, i.e. the respondent herein, struck the petitioner's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns and balance sheets in respect of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the petitioner's name off the Register maintained by the respondent. It is stated that the procedure prescribed under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under Section 560(1), Section 560(2), Section 560(3) and, ultimately, under Section 560(5) were issued, and that the name of the petitioner comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andard Fire and Special Perils Policy, have been annexed to this petition. 5. It is also submitted by the petitioner that it had prepared and maintained all statutory documentation, including accounts that were audited every year, and that it had engaged the services of Vijay Bhatia Co., Chartered Accountants, to perform the task of filing the documents with the respondent's office. It is submitted that the aforesaid Chartered Accountant firm did not file the returns and other necessary documents with the respondent. It is further submitted that it was only in March 2009, when the petitioner tried to file Form 32 electronically, that the fact that it's name had been struck off the Register, was known to it. 6. Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the management. Yet, looking to the fact that the company is functional; that this petition has been filed within the prescribed limitation period, i.e. within 20 years from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette; and to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Purushottamdas and Anr. (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) v. Registrar of Companies (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed. 9. I might notice that Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 states, inter alia, as follows; Unless for any special reasons that the Court shall otherwise order, the order shall direct that the petitioners do pay to the Registrar of Companies his costs of, and occasioned by, the petition. To my mind, the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrar of Companies CP. No. 170/2009, decided on 4th June, 2010. 11. For all these reasons, the restoration of the company's name to the Register maintained by the respondent will be subject to the payment of ₹ 75,000/- as exemplary costs, payable to the common pool fund of the Official Liquidator. In addition, further costs of ₹ 25,000/- be paid to the respondent. Costs be paid within three weeks from today. The restoration of the petitioner company's name to the Register will be subject to the petitioner filing all outstanding documents required by law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
