9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hlorate. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the above Writ Petition mainly with the following prayers :- (i)To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibits. P5 and P6 complaints pending before the Special Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) as ST Nos. 296 and 299 of 2000. (ii)To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to take necessary steps contemplated under section 560 of the Companies Act to struck off the Major Chemical Ltd. (Reg. No. 3906 of 1984) from the register. 2. For the manufacturing of the aforesaid products, it requires sanction from the Central Government as also from the State Government. The case of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1956. Thereafter the petitioner had received copies of Exts. P5 and-P6 complaints along with summons from the Special Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam directing him to appear in ST Nos. 296 and 299 of 2000. It was in the said circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above Writ Petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman and the learned counsel Addl. CGSC Sri. George Joseph. 4. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the company which was incorporated on 1-6-1984 had, in fact, never commenced its functioning and at any rate, it had become a defunct company from 1-2-1989. Stating that fact and with a request to strike off its na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein that proper notices were issued to the company and to its directors on their default in submitting the documents and accounts by the year 1999. Since they have failed to discharge their duty cast upon them under the Act, they are liable to be proceeded against. In short, according to respondent, the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner and the company strictly in accordance with law. 6. Though counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, he did not deny the receipt of Ext. P3 therein. Ext. P3 carries a specific request to strike off the name of the company from the registers by invoking the power under section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit as to why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
