9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered by the NCLT. Hence, impugned order dated 18.11.2019 is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellants before the NCLT is restored to the original file subject to condition that Appellant Company shall pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai within six (6) weeks from the passing of this judgment. The NCLT is requested to hear the parties after issuance of notice, and pass reasoned order in accordance with law at an early date. Appeal disposed off. - [ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Ajai Das Mehrotra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant: Mr. Avineesh Jha , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Avinash Singh , Advocate for RoC JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exploring, operating and working on mines, quarries and to win, set, crush, smelt, manufacture, process, excavate, dig, break, acquire, develop, exercise, turn to account, survey, produce, prepare, remove, undertake, barter, convert, finish, load, unload, handle, transport, buy sell, import, export, supply and to as agent, broker, stockiest, distributor, consultant, contractor, manager, operator or otherwise to deal in all sorts of presents and future steel, ores, minerals, deposits, goods, substances materials, including sands, stones, and soils, chalk, clay, china clay, betonies, broils, calcite and coal, lignite, brimstone, brine, bauxite, limestone, precious and other stones, gold, silver, diamonds, iron, aluminum, titanium, vanadium, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awar filed Form No. DIR-12 for appointment of Directors in the Petitioner Company in the ROC, Mumbai. The said two persons were made Directors of the Petitioner Company. At the time of filing the said Form, the Company Secretary of the Petitioner Company, namely Janish Jayesh Modi though provided sufficient information by the present Appellants, did not fill the said form correctly and wrongly mentioned the Registered Address. The said Company Secretary also did not inform the same to the present Appellants in time but the Appellants came to know after the filing of Company Petition before the NCLT, Mumbai. vi) On 07.03.2018, after the issuance of the order, the Petitioner Company has deposited necessary fees of Rs. 10,000/- in the Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies (Removal of names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rule, 2016, the Respondent had issued notice of striking off and dissolution of the Appellant Company. In October, 2018, Chartered Accountant of the Petitioner Company namely Krutika and Associates prepared Audit Report of the Year 2018-19 and filed the same along with the necessary documents in the Income Tax Department. On 18.12.2018, Mining Officer, Balangir Circle has been sent Mining Licence Application along with necessary documents and technical enquiry report to the Director of Mines, Odisha for further necessary action. x) On 01.01.2019, Sanjeevani Consultancy issued letter stating that the process regarding Mining Licence of the Petitioner Company is going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant-Company. 4. It is further submitted that even after service of notice, the Respondent/ ROC did not appear before the NCLT nor filed any reply. Inspite of the same, the NCLT was pleased to pass present impugned order without assigning specific observations. As per Section 252(1), the Tribunal ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the Respondent/ROC. Since incorporation the Appellant- Company is carrying on business as mentioned in the MOU thereby submitting various applications for mining license to the Government Authorities which subsequently issued mining license to the Appellant-Company. Further, on 04.07.2018 (at page 96 of the Appeal), the Mining Officer had issued corresponding letter thereby considering application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to time. The basis for striking off the name of the company was the continuous non-filing of the statutory returns (which are required to be filed under the Companies Act, 1956 and/or the Companies Act, 2013) and that the company was not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and has not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant company under Section 455, prior to its striking off. The aforesaid situation has arisen due to inaction on the part of the Appellant Company and its Directors/Officers. The appropriate action was taken by the Respondent No. 1 to strike off the company, which is duly prescribed under Section 248 of the Act. 7. It is furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
