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

2016 (9) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... truck off the name of the petitioner from the Register of Companies, be set aside. At the same time, however, there is no gainsaying the fact that a greater degree of care was certainly required from the petitioner company in ensuring statutory compliances. Looking to the fact that annual returns and balance sheets were not filed for almost seventeen years, the primary responsibility for ensuring that proper returns and other statutory documents are filed, in terms of the statute and the rules, remains that of the management. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The restoration of the company’s name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies will be subject to payment of costs of ₹ 22,000/- to be paid to the common p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... odies, tools and implements and to carry on the business or body builders of motor vehicles and trucks and secondary object of construction, acquisition, selling of all kinds of movable and immovable properties. Presently, the registered office of the petitioner is stated to be situated at 5, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Pratap Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The petitioner submits that pursuant to its incorporation, the Petitioner Company on 04.07.1995 also purchased a parcel of land in Village Silokhera, District Gurgaon, Haryana for the purpose of carrying out commercial activities in pursuit of its objects. Thereafter due to some peculiar circumstances within the family of the Directors of the Petitioner Company, all commercial activities were p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any s name at Serial no.8694. 6. The petitioner has, on the other hand, submitted that it has been an active company and carrying on its business since its incorporation. In support of this statement, the petitioner has relied on license granted to the company to set up commercial complex, entering into collaboration agreements, owning land for commercial activities, copies of all of which are annexed with the petition. 7. The petitioner states that it came to the notice of the petitioner company that the name of the petitioner company has been struck off under section 560(5) somewhere in January, 2016 through its Bankers. The Petitioner Company had approached the Bank which was nominated to be the Escrow Bank under the Collaboration .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the records of the respondent is different from the place from where the company is actually working. The petitioner has not filed on record any proof of intimation of the change of the address of its registered office, to the respondent. 11. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the period of limitation stipulated by S. 560(6) of Companies Act, 1956. 12. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has no objection to the restoration of the petitioner company s name under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, subject to the petitioner filing all statutory documents, i.e. annual returns and balance sheets after 1999, and other requisite documents along with filing fee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ces, it is entirely possible that the respondent had sent notices under S.560 to the petitioner on the address of its registered office but the same may not have been received by the petitioner. 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 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 23.06.2007, which struck off the name of the petitioner from the Register of Companies, be set aside. At the same time, however, there is no gainsaying the fact that a greater de .....

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