9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance sheets and permit the Petitioners to file e-forms in respect of belated annual returns and balance sheets without charging additional fees. 2. Since the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3999/2021 is the parent company and the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3964/2021 is the subsidiary company and the reliefs as sought for in the both the writ petitions are identical, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common Judgment. 3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant writ petitions are that the Petitioners are incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The business of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3999/2021 i.e., M/s Aryan Cargo and Express Logistics Private Limited is being carried forward by the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, this Court held that the Petitioners would continue to be liable to pay penalties for late filing of the annual returns and balance sheets and other documents as prescribed under the Companies Act. 5. A Scheme called as "Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020" (CFSS, 2020) was brought in by the Respondents on 30.03.2020 for facilitating the companies to make a fresh start on a clean slate by filing a bleated documents without payment of additional fees. The Scheme was valid from 01.04.2020 to 30.09.2020. The Scheme was not applicable to those companies against whom a notice for striking off the name under Section 248 of the Companies Act had already been initiated. The period of the said Scheme was extended to 31.12.2020. Material on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs filing their annual returns and balance sheets along with requisite fees in accordance with law within a period of three months. The period of three months lapsed on 11.05.2021. Material on record also indicates that the Petitioners, thereafter, moved applications being CM APPL. 16149/2021 in W.P.(C) 5803/2020 and CM APPL. 16152/2021 in W.P.(C) 5831/2020 for extension of time to comply with the Order dated 11.02.2021. The said applications were disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 07.09.2021 by granting Petitioners further three weeks' time as a last opportunity to comply with the directions in the Order dated 11.02.2021, failing which it was open for the Respondents to once again strike off the name of the Petitioners from the Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o such of those companies whose name had been directed to be restored by the NCLT. It is contended that the reason for allowing the W.P.(C) 5803/2020 and W.P.(C) 5831/2020 was that the Respondents had no objection if the name of the Petitioners would be restored and therefore, the Petitioners were entitled to the same benefits as of those companies whose name had been restored by the NCLT in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 252 of the Companies Act. It is stated that the Petitioners also could not file the applications in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that the benefit of the Order dated 11.02.2021 is not available to the Petitioners because the companies which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhav Dang, ld. Counsel that the data in the ROC website itself shows that the balance sheets till 2018 have been filed in W.P(C) 5803/2020. However, Mr. Santosh Kumar, ROC, had submitted that the front portal was earlier showing that the balance sheet has been filed till 2018. However, after verification, it was found that in W.P(C) 5803/2020, no balance sheet has been filed by the Company after 2013 and in W.P(C) 5831/2020 no balance sheet has been filed since incorporation of the Company. Mr. Dang, ld. counsel was directed to clarify this issue on the next date of hearing. 6. Mr. Chetan Sharma, ld. ASG has made his submissions and has shown to this Court that under the provisions of Section 248 of Act read with the Companies (Removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the Scheme for condonation of delay was already in existence, this Court did not extend the benefit of the Scheme to the Petitioners herein. Meaning thereby, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only directed that the name of the Petitioners to be restored subject to the payment of requisite fees by the Petitioners which actually meant that the Petitioners had to pay the late fees. It was open for the Respondents to move an application for clarification of the Order dated 11.02.2021 which the Petitioners did not do so, rather they moved applications for extension of time for payment of money and this Court vide Order dated 07.09.2021 granted further three weeks' time. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
