Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (8) TMI 767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, on expiration of 30 days and on being satisfied that the application is otherwise in order, the Registrar shall strike the company s name off the Register and send a notice for publication in the Official Gazette. The applicant company will stand dissolved from the date of publication of the notification. Ext.P6 reveals that the notice regarding striking off and dissolution of Margin Free Kuries Pvt Ltd was forwarded to the Government of India Press. As such, the entire procedure contemplated under Section 560, and the guidelines stood complied with, the company s name stood struck off from the register and the company itself got dissolved. It is preposterous for the respondents to contend that the petitioner was disqualified for failure .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication was issued informing that the name of the Company was struck off and the Company stood dissolved. Contrary to the information passed on through Exts.P5 and P6, in the website of the first respondent, the status of Margin Free Kuries Pvt. Ltd was shown as 'under process of striking off'. On noticing this anomaly, the petitioner sent Ext.P8 communication to the second respondent, requesting to correct the mistake by striking off the company's name. Later, on checking the status of his Director Identification Number (DIN), the petitioner was dismayed to find that the status was shown as 'disqualified by RoC under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013'. The petitioner's DIN had also been deactivated for the period 01.08.2018 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ning the application and being satisfied that the application is in order. After the 30 days of issuance of notice and on being satisfied that the case is otherwise in order, the Registrar shall strike off the company's name from the Register and send notice under sub-section (5) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for publication in the Official Gazette and the applicant company shall stand dissolved. In the instant case the above procedure was followed, as evidenced by Exts. P5 and P6. Being so, the second respondent could not have disqualified the petitioner alleging that the returns of the dissolved company were not filed. 3. It is submitted that as a result of the illegal disqualification and deactivation of DIN, the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lagging in the system as there was failure on their part to comply with the requirement of Section 164(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Companies (Appointment of Directors) Rules, 2014. 5. The following facts are not in dispute; The FTE application seeking to strike off Margin Free Kuries Pvt. Ltd from the register of Companies was submitted by the petitioner on 05.02.2016. Notice under Section 560(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, intimating that the Company will be struck off from the register and dissolved at the expiration of 30 days, was issued on 05.02.2016. By communication dated 02.05.2016, the petitioner was informed that the company had been struck off from the register and dissolved with effect from the date of intimation. Surprisingly, ev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom the register and the company itself got dissolved. It is preposterous for the respondents to contend that the petitioner was disqualified for failure to submit returns with respect to a dissolved company. It is disheartening to note that even when the anomaly with respect to the status of the company was informed to the second respondent, absolutely nothing was done by the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner was penalised for their folly. In such circumstances, I find substantial merit in the contention that the action of the second respondent is liable to be deprecated and I do so. I refrain from imposing cost and ordering compensation, hoping that the mistake was inadvertent and will be corrected immediately. In the result .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates