TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies. In the result, this Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Registrar of Companies along with a copy of this Order seeking revival of the company and if such application is filed, the Registrar of the Companies shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the rules framed thereunder within a period of four weeks from the date of filing such application complete in all respects. - Company Petition No. 168 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil K Cella for M/s.K.Jayaraman For the Respondent : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, CGSC For 2nd Respondent: Mr.T.P.Manohar for M/s.T.M.Naveen ORDER Heard Mr.Anil K.Cella for Mr.K.Jayaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisami, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.T.M.Naren for the respondent. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The prayer sought for is to direct the respondent to restore the name of the petitioner to the Register under Section 560(6) of the Act w.e.f. 27.06.2011, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, expired on 16.07.2011. According to the petitioner, since the company was struck off, and one of the Directors passed away, they could not submit the Board Resolution for transfer of the leasehold right. Therefore, they seek for restoration of the company's name in the Register maintained by the 1st respondent and for this purpose, the present application has been filed. 6. The Deputy Registrar of the Companies has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner company was incorporated on 11.04.1986 to carry on the objects as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. In paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit, it is stated that as per the records of the 1st respondent, the petitioner company has filed Balance Sheet and Annual Returns up to 2004 and therefore, the 1st respondent initiated action under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 for striking off the name of the company. It is further submitted in para 5 of the counter that since no reply has been received from the company, on notice issued under Section 560(1) of the Act, action under Sections 560(3) and 560(5) were initiated and consequently, the petitioner's company was struck off from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old right in favour of the said V.R.Industries. The petitioner further sent a Fax message on 21.08.2014 along with the Board Resolution of their company, which according to PIPDIC is not a valid one. PIPDIC vide their letter dated15.09.2014 informed the petitioner company to submit a Certified True copy of their Original Board Resolution and the details of the present Directors of the company. However, they failed to submit the same and this was followed by the reminder dated 06.11.2014 and evenafter lapse of 3 months, no reply was received by PIPDIC. Therefore, PIPDIC opined that it cannot allow to keep the factory premises closed for a long time, particularly, when a number of entrepreneurs are seeking for allotment of industrial plots. It is further stated that PIPDIC vide their letters dated 01.12.2015 and 22.1.2016 has requested the petitioner company to furnish the Board Resolution for induction of Mr.Prakash Bhatia as a Director, the Board Resolution authorising two Directors to sign the necessary documents for transfer of the leasehold rights and an acknowledgment from the Registrar of Companies for induction of new Directors. According to PIPDIC, till date, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions in his counter affidavit rather would state that the petitioner is at liberty to revive the company before the expiry of 20 years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice issued under Section 560(5) of the Act. As observed earlier, the application is well within 20 years. 13. The only objection raised by the Registrar of Companies is that in case, an order is passed for revival of the company, the same shall be subject to the filing of all overdue documents, statutory filing, namely, Annual Return and Balance Sheet from the date of default by the petitioner company with the respondent. Therefore, if the petitioner is able to file all the overdue documents as called for by the Registrar of Companies, it is for the Registrar of Companies to consider as to whether the company can be revived. Therefore, at this juncture, the question of issuing a positive direction for reviving the company does not arise and this Court can only direct the Registrar of Companies to consider the application or the request made by the petitioner for revival of the company subject to statutory compliances as may be required by the Registrar of the Companies. 14. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
