TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ously disputed by the respondents. The Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment has proceeded on the basis of the facts referred to in the affidavit in opposition filed by the RoC while recording a finding regarding the locus of the appellant in assailing the order of the Registrar striking of the name of the Company under Section 560(5) of the Act, 2003 and, at this stage, it is difficult to place reliance on the documents placed by the appellant to claim himself to be one of the Directors of the Company. Appeal dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). 4448 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - AJAY RASTOGI And B. V. NAGARATHNA , JJ. JUDGMENT Ajay Rastogi , J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business and the last annual return was filed of the year 20022003. The relevant extract is quoted hereunder: Basanti Cotton Mills(1998) Pvt. Ltd. 12.08.1998 The company was formed and registered under the Companies Act 1956 as Basanti Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. bearing Registration no.87716. First Directors of the Company were a) GOPAL N DAVE b) NIKHIL M. MERCHANT c) PARESH V. MERCHANT 10.03.2003 Last Annual Return filed by the company made upto 04.02.2003 wherein the following were shown as its directors. a) GOPAL N DAVE b) NIKHIL M MERCHANT c) PARESH V MERCHANT As per Annexure - A 23.12.2003 Last Balance Sheet of the Company as at 30.09.2003 filed by the company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Nirendranath Kar, Dipali Chowdhury and Babulal Banerjee may not be evident as Directors of the company in absence of any such filing of Form No. 32 as required under Section 303 of the Companies Act, 1956. [emphasis supplied] 4. After the name was struck off, it was published in the Gazette of 27th January, 2006. The bank also issued no dues certificate in favour of Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Pvt. Ltd. to release charge of the assets of the Company. Complaint was filed by the appellant claiming to be one of the Directors of the Company in the year 2010 before the High Court under Section 560(6) of the Act 1956. Learned Single Judge allowed the application by judgment and order dated 6th October, 2010 after recording a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 77 of the paper book (VolumeII), we would find, as on the date of the striking off not a single document would show the nexus of the respondent no. 1 with the company. He came in picture in October 2008 through filing of DIN. Documents filed after 2008 would also show, he was Director since 1998 as claimed by him. Such dispute would have to be resolved in an appropriate forum. Section 560 would not give power to the Court to adjudicate as to such dispute. The court would be relying upon the admitted records that would clearly show, respondent no. 1 did not feature in the records. His belated plea would also keep him at bay. His prayer for restoration would wait for a decision in his favour on his status by a competent civil court or any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for all practical purposes, the name of the Company was struck off way back on 27th January, 2006 and the paid up share capital as per last balance sheet of 2003 is reduced to Rs.7000/in terms of Section 3 of the Act 1956, such companies are deemed to be defunct companies and sixteen years have rolled after the date of striking off the name of the Company in the year 2006, there is hardly any justification to restore the name of the Company at this stage, particularly, when there are no operations of the said Company all throughout. 11. The Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment has proceeded on the basis of the facts referred to in the affidavit in opposition filed by the RoC while recording a finding regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
