TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of its official record the updated address of the registered office of the petitioner-company was not reflected in the records of the respondent; and further, in absence of any submission and/or documents to the contrary, it is entirely possible that the respondent had sent notices under S.560 to the petitioner on the old address of its registered office and the same may not have been received by the petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances, it is possible that notice in respect of action under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956, was not sent to the registered office of the company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike off the name of petitioner from the Register maintained by the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SRA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Kuchhal, Advocate. For The Respondent : Ms. Aparna Mudiam, Asstt. ROC. JUDGMENT SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Pancham Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner ) under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for restoration of its name in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. 2. The petitioner was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi Haryana (hereinafter called the respondent ) as a company limited by shares on 18.06.1992 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 55-49222 of 1992-93with the object of carrying on the business, inter alia, of hotels, resorts and restauran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years ending 31.03.2012 to 31.03.2014, copies of all of which are annexed with the petition. 5. It is further stated by the petitioner that it did not receive any notices/letters/show-cause notices as required under Section 560(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, nor was it afforded any opportunity of being heard before action under S.560(5) was taken by the respondent. The petitioner also averred that upon inspection of official records of the petitioner-company carried out by its authorised representative, no documents pertaining to S.560 were found. It is further averred that no documents evidencing the basis on which the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner-company was not carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. 8. It has been averred on behalf of the respondent that though the notices/letters under S.560(1) and (3) were sent, their copies and dispatch proof are not traceable. It is pertinent to note here that since per the petitioner s enquiries and inspection of its official record the updated address of the registered office of the petitioner-company was not reflected in the records of the respondent; and further, in absence of any submission and/or documents to the contrary, it is entirely possible that the respondent had sent notices under S.560 to the petitioner on the old address of its registered office and the same may not have been received by the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Under the facts and circumstances, it is possible that notice in respect of action under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956, was not sent to the registered office of the company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike off the name of petitioner from the Register maintained by the respondent, was not satisfied. And looking to the fact that the petitioner is stated to be a running company; and that it has filed this petition within the stipulated limitation period; and also to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Purushottamdass and Anr. (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) v. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Ors. (supra); it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent dated 23.06.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
