TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds bequeathed to one of the legal heirs of Mr. S.L. Kapur and the same is already stands paid by Respondent No. 2 Company. The appellant has failed to prove that he is a creditor of the company as documents on record prove that the arnount borrowed by the company from deceased Mr. S.L. Kapur has already been paid to a legal heir of deceased and the company is not liable to pay any amount thereof. Besides there are indemnity bonds submitted by the ex-directors of the company which makes them liable for any liability arises after struck off of the name of company - section 560(6) would not come to the rescue of the appellant as no credible evidence has been shown to prove that it would be just that the name of the company be restored on the register of ROC. Petition dismissed. - C.P.-227(ND)/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2018 - Chief Justice (RTD.) M.M.Kumar, Hon'ble President S. K. Mohapatra, Hon'ble Member (T) For the appellant/ Petitioner: Mr. Angad Mehta, Advocate For the ROC NCT of Delhi Haryana: Ms. Kusum Yadav, Company Prosecutor For Income Tax Department: Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, St. Counsel ORDER CHIEF JUSTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in the hands Mr. Anil Kapur and Respondent No.'s 3 and 4 and the assets of Respondent No.2 were in the complete control of Mr. Anil Kapur and the same were siphoned off and misappropriated. 7. It is contended that Late Shri S. L. Kapur died intestate in the year 1994. Upon his demise, Ms. Nupur Kapur, his granddaughter was unlawfully inducted as a director in Respondent No 2. Thereafter Mrs. Kanwal Kapur and Mrs. Nupur Kapur applied under the aforementioned scheme for the striking off of the Respondent No. 2 from the Register of Companies. Both Respondents have infact filed affidavits and indemnity bonds to this effect. Copies of the affidavit and indemnity bond executed by Mrs. Kanwal Kapur along with true typed copies and copies of the affidavit and indemnity bond executed by Mrs. Nupur Kapur along with true typed copies have been placed on record. 8. Subsequently, in the year 2008 the Petitioner No. 1 has filed a suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the partition of the joint family estate, being CS (OS) No 176 of 2008 in which one of the Defendants therein, Mr. Gaurav Kapur filed his written statement wherein he stated that the aforementio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the total arnount (principal + interest) due to Petitioners is a sum of ₹ 1 (Rupees One crore ninety two lakhs ninety thousand three hundred and twenty only). 11. It is also the case of petitioners that they are aggrieved by the act of Respondent No. 1 in striking off the name of Respondent No.2 from the Register of Companies vide Gazette Notification No. SES and the present petition is filed by the Petitioners who are creditors of Respondent No.2. The petition is being filed within a period of 20 (twenty) years from the date of order of striking off. The Petition is within time and is maintainable. 12. It is also stated that Petitioner No. 1 herein has also instituted a criminal complaint u/ s 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against Respondent no. 3 and Respondent no. 4 , for dishonest misappropriation of property, which is currently pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi, being Complaint No.299/ 1. 13. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. ROC has filed its reply and submitted that the respondent no.2 company M/S. Laj Leasing and Credit Private Limited applied for striking off its name from the Register o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contained in section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The relevant provisions read as follows: (6) If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the Court, on an application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register; and the Court may, by the order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. 18. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions, shows that if a company, or any member or creditor thereof feels aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 560, then the Court (Substituted with the word Tribunal by Act 11 of 2003) on an application made by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
