Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (6) TMI 1676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Petitioner: Mr. Arvind H Gupta, PCS For the Respondent: None ORDER Per Shri Ravikumar Duraisamy, Member 1. This petition is filed by "Insuflex Ind Private Limited", Represented through its Director and Shareholder Mr. Prakash Chandru Chablani seeking relief against the respondent, inter-alia among other things, to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies maintained by the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... before the aforesaid action was taken by the Opp. Party. It has two Directors namely Mr. Prakash Chablani and Mr. Mohamad Ansari. The shares of the Petitioner are held by two shareholders namely Mr. Prakash Chablani 9500 Equity Shares (95%) and Mr. Mohamad Ansari 500 Equity Shares (5%). The Balance Sheet of the Company was ready since 2012 and the company has filed Income-tax Return also till date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... complying with statutory requirements and to remove the name of directors from the list of disqualified directors exhibited on MCA. 6. The Respondent side filed a detailed written Submissions dated 25.04.2019 explaining the sequence leading to the striking off of the name of the company. The Respondent side issued STK-1 notice dated 11.03.2017 and STK-7 dated 11.07.2017. The company has not made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l these Nil figures indicates that the company currently exists only on paper, not carrying on any business or operation which substantiates the criteria as laid down in section 248 of the Companies Act 2013, therefore, the action taken by ROC is justified and the Bench did not feel any ground to interfere with action of striking off the name of the company by ROC. The Bench is also of the conside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates