TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Jharkhand is not sustainable in law. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the specific compliances - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 290 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2020 - Justice Jarat Kumar Jain Member (Judicial), Mr. Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) And Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Ms. Heena George, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Prahlad Meena, ROC, Jharkhand. JUDGMENT JARAT KUMAR JAIN, J. This Appeal is preferred by Khetan Granite Private Limited against the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata on 27th August, 2019 in CP (Appeal) No.465/KB/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant Company has filed this Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant Company has purchased certain land vide Sale Deeds dated 17.04.2015and 08.06.2015. This land was purchased for the purpose of business development. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the delay in filing of Annual Returns of the Company was not deliberate as the same was the result of inadvertent and unintentional mistake. However, Audited Balance Sheet and Annual Statements for the Financial Year 2012-13 onwards upto 2017-18 duly signed by the Auditors and Directors were submitted before the NCLT, Kolkata Bench. The Appellant Company had filed the Income Tax Return for the year 2017-18. It is further submitted that the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent ROC, written submission has been filed. In the written submission, it is stated that ROC has issued Show Cause Notice on 20th March, 2017. Thereafter, Public Notice in Form STK-5 U/s 248(1) of the Companies Act was published on 18th April, 2017, but no reply was received from the Appellant Company. Thus, the name of the Appellant Company had been deleted from the Register of Companies and published the name in official gazette on 14th July, 2017. It is also stated that the ROC does not have any objection to restore the name of the Petitioner Company, if Appellants are ready to file all the due returns under the provisions laid down under Section 403(1) proviso-1 of Companies Act r/w Companies (Registration of Offices and Fees) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions we have come to the conclusion that it would be just that the name of the company is directed to be restored. i) Impugned order is set aside. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances. ii) Appellant shall pay costs of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) to the Registrar of Companies, Jharkhand within 30 days. iii) After restoration of the Company s name in the Register maintained by the ROC, the Company shall file all their Annual Returns and Balance Sheets for the Financial Year ending on 31.03.2013 and onwards. The Company shall also pay requisite charges/fee as well as late fee/charges as applicable. iv) Inspite of present orders, ROC will be free to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
