TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther substantial assets are available. No materials from the side of Petitioner Company to establish that, it was an ongoing concern at the time when its name was struck off - the name of the company cannot be restored and the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore had rightly removed the name of the company from the register of companies. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - C.P.No.40/BB/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - Shri Ratakonda Murali And Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, JJ. For the Petitioner (s) Mr. Ashok Kumar Tripathy, A.K Tripathy Co, ORDER Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, A Director by name Mr. Mohan Channapattana Nagaraj of the Petitioner Company Insys Instruments Systems (India) Private Limited has filed the present Petition under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 with a prayer for issuance of directions to the Registrar of Companies, Kamataka to restore the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies and to pass such order as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. The averments in the Company Petition are briefly described hereunder:- The Petitioner Company was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's Report was ready to be filed with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka came to know that, the name of the Petitioner Company has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies. It is further averred that, if the name of the Petitioner Company is not restored in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, the Petitioner as well as its shareholders shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship and will be highly prejudiced. It is further averred that the Petitioner Company, in the event of revival of the Company and restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, shall file all outstanding statutory documents i.e., the financial statements and annual returns upto 2017. The Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bengaluru has filed Counter Affidavit dated March, 2018 along with annexures. The Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bengaluru denied all the averments made in the petition except those which are specially admitted herein and submitted his report as follows that: 1) It is submitted that on verification of the MCA 21 portal in the month of March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent proceeded to strike of the name of the Company from the Register of Companies and published a notice in STK-7 in the homepage of the MCA on 17.07.2017. A copy of the said STK-7 Notice is shown as Annexure- VII. It was also published in the official Gazette on 29.07.2017 stating that from 17.07.2017 names Of the companies mentioned therein including the petitioner company have been struck off from the Register of Companies as per sec 248(5) of the Act. A copy of the publication made in the Official Gazette on 29.07.2017 is shown as Annexure-VIII. 5) The Petitioner has stated that, the company has been carrying on business and company and its shareholders shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship if company is not restored. Further, the company is also ready to submit all pending relevant documents. 6) There is no inquiry, investigation and complaints against this Company. 7) The Petitioner has prayed that the name of the Company be restored to the Register of Companies under section 252 of the Act. Subject to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Tribunal and in the event of this Hon'ble Tribunal willing to revive the Company, then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. ' The Practicing Company Secretary for the Petitioner Company has filed Affidavit dated 22nd November 2017 of the Authorised Signatory of the Petitioner Company stating that, no abnormal cash deposits was made into the Bank Account of the Petitioner Company during the demonetization period and no notice from Income Tax Authorities has been served on the Company and the Petitioner undertakes by way of an Affidavit that, necessary filing shall be done within 30 days of the restoration of the name of the Company. We have heard the Practicing Company Secretary for the Petitioner Company, who contended that, the accounts of the Petitioner Company has been prepared and audited and that the company had engaged the services of a Company Secretary to perform the task of filing the returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, who did not reveal the facts to the Directors of the Petitioner Company. He further filed Memo dated 701 March 2018 alongwith justification for the revival of the company given by the Authorised Signatory o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
