TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial compliance and knowledge can be assumed. A notice on STK-5 under Section 248(1) of Companies Act, 2013 has been issued to 24338 companies including the appellant company intimating them the reasons for striking off/removal of their name from the register of companies and dissolve them unless a cause is shown to the contrary, within thirty days from the date of notice. Appellant company was given thirty days’ time to file their objection from the date of publication of notice. No objection has been filed by the company. A Public Notice in Form No.STK-5A was published in the English and Telugu newspapers for the information of the general public and concerned companies including the appellant company intimating them the reasons for striking off/removal of their name from the register of companies and dissolve them unless a cause is shown to the contrary, within thirty days from the date of notice. Appellant company was given thirty days’ time to file their objection from the date of publication of notice. The company having failed to respond to the opportunity which is in the public domain, therefore, the ROC in absence of any explanation received from the company o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt portion of the impugned order is as under: 5.In spite of the above facts available on record, the Petitioner Company has casually submitted that the ROC has struck off the name of the company on 28.07.2017 without any prior notice. In spite of publicising the information about the steps taken by the Government through various modes of communications including newspapers, notices from ROC, Gazette notification for striking off the names of Companies for various reasons, the Petitioner Company made such unwanted averments in the Petition which the Bench would like to view very seriously. 6.From the records made available by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, no record in support of their prayer is submitted by the Learned Counsel for making an appeal to NCLT, when the company itself is dissolved. 7.In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench has no other option but to reject the Appeal dated 14.7.2017 filed through CA 95/252/HDB/2017. 4. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 19.09.2017 the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the name of the appellant co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowledgement due or speed post but no proof of service/delivery has been furnished by the Respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 service is only deemed to be effected upon showing proof of properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by post the relevant document which could have been shown by furnishing the speed post receipts and the same has not been done in the present case. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the purported documents evidencing speed post expenditure is wholly misplaced and the said documents in no way show that any notice in Form STK-1 was in fact issued and thereafter served/delivered to the appellant company or its two directors. Learned counsel further submitted that the speed post expenditure receipt is dated 11.1.2018 and is in relation to articles booked for the month of December, 2017 whereas the said notices were issued in March, 2017. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the notice in Form STK-1 dated 17.3.2017 issued to appellant company is unsigned; notices issued to the two directors has been digitally signed on a date different f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies which have not filed their statutory returns for the FY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and issued notice under Section 248(1) in STK I to those company and their directors. Learned counsel further submitted that the notices depicting the names of those companies have been published in the web portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs namely www.nca.gov.in and in the official Gazette in STK-5 and a public notice in STK-5A showing the web link to verify the name of the identified companies have been published in newspapers of English and Telugu languages. Name of these companies were also communicated to other regulators authorities like Income Tax, Central Excise, Service Tax and Reserve Bank of India. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after thorough verification of the filings done by these companies and after examining the replies received from the companies and their directors for the notice in STK-1, STK-5, STK-5A and after analysing the objections received from other Regulatory Authorities, 20082 companies have been struck off by the Respondent and STK-7 notices has been issued on 21.7.2017 and the same has been published in the official Gazette of India date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected by the Tribunal and not an application under Section 252(3) of the Act. Learned counsel further stated that the Tribunal has allowed many applications filed under Section 252(3) of the Act for revival of the struck off companies. Learned counsel further submitted that they generated notice to all such identified companies and its directors as available in MCA Port and issued more than one lakh notices in STK-1 and spent an amount of about ₹ 33 lakhs for payment towards speed post expenditure and proof of payment is filed with the reply. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have issued notices in all three modes in respect of the 20082 companies including name of the appellant company. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 7 quoted in the appeal was amended and it is STK-5A without the names of the companies but with web link to the website, which was published in respect of all such companies including the appellant and the publication STK-5A in newspapers was in due compliances of law and was in order. Learned counsel for the respondent next stated that composite Form STK-7 notice in respect of 20082 companies was published in Gaz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a working company and that the name of the appellant company ought to be restored. 29. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 30. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly argued that Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates the Registrar of Companies to send a notice to the company as well as all the directors of the said company about its intention to remove the name of the company from the register of companies. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per Rule 3(2) of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 the said notice is required to be given in Form STK-1to all the directors of the company at the addresses available on record, by registered post with acknowledgement due or by speed post. No notice has been issued to third director. No proof of service has been shown. 31. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the notice in Form No.STK 1 have been issued to the appellant company and two of its directors, who were the director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
