Court Upholds Registrar's Company Strike-off, Imposes Penalty

The Court found that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) followed proper procedures in striking off three companies' names from the Register of Companies. Despite compliance, due to operational status and prejudice caused, the Court directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs.1 lakh for each company as a pro tem penalty, with restoration upon deposit. The companies can make representations to the ROC for further consideration and penalty imposition. Upon deposit, freezing orders will be lifted, and communication will be via email and Speed Post. The Petitioners can still seek remedies from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). This decision is case-specific and not a precedent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the striking off of companies' names by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Companies Act, 2013 and associated rules.
3. Availability and appropriateness of alternative remedies.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Striking Off:
The petitions challenge the striking off of the names of three companies from the Register of Companies by the ROC under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Petitioner, an ex-director of these companies, contends that the orders/notices of striking off were not properly served, violating the Act and Rules.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The Petitioner argues that the ROC failed to serve the mandatory notice under Form STK-1 via email, despite having the directors' email addresses. The ROC asserts that all necessary provisions were complied with, including issuing notices under Section 248(1) in Form STK-1 by Speed Post, and publishing notices in the official gazette and newspapers as required by the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.

3. Availability and Appropriateness of Alternative Remedies:
The ROC argues that the order of striking off is appealable under Section 252 of the Companies Act by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and many companies have sought relief through this route. The Court acknowledges this but decides not to relegate the Petitioner to the NCLT due to the prejudicial impact of the striking off on the companies' business operations.

Judgment:
The Court finds that the ROC followed the required procedures, including issuing notices by Speed Post, which is in compliance with Rule 3(2). However, considering the companies are operational and the striking off has caused significant prejudice, the Court issues the following directions:

1. The Petitioner shall deposit Rs.1 lakh for each company as a pro tem penalty under Section 10A(2) within one week, upon which the names of the companies shall be restored.
2. The companies shall make a representation under Section 248, to be considered by the ROC, who may impose penalties as per the Act and Rules.
3. Upon deposit, the ROC shall remove the freezing orders, allowing the companies to operate their bank accounts.
4. Any orders by the ROC shall be communicated to the Petitioner via email and Speed Post.
5. The Petitioners retain the right to approach the NCLT for further remedies.

The Court emphasizes that this order is specific to the unique facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent. The petitions and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly.

---