TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15222 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the erstwhile company, i.e., Highseas Mastics (India) Pvt. Ltd., and petitioner No. 2 is Mr. Surinder Dhami, a Director in petitioner No. 1. 3. The Registrar of Companies, i.e., the respondent herein, struck the company's name, off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file balance sheets and annual returns in respect of the years 1995-2008 i.e., almost fourteen years. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for striking the name of petitioner No. 1 off the register maintained by his office. It is stated by counsel for the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the company. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 2 himself underwent a protracted bout of illness and health problems, and was in and out of hospital on various occasions. Not only that, it is further submitted that petitioner No. 2's wife and son were also diagnosed with health complications, for which extensive treatment was required. Copies of various medical prescriptions in respect of petitioner No. 2 and his wife have been placed on record in support of these statements. It is also stated that it was only in 2008 that the fact of non-filing of the returns and other documents with the respondent, as well as the fact that the company's name had been struck off the register maintained by the respondent, was known to the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme, 2010', which has been introduced by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India for the period 30-5-2010 to 31-8-2010, in order to enable companies who have not complied with statutory provisions regarding filing of certain documents with the respondent, or those companies that have not raised their share capital to the required threshold limits, to do so without apprehension of action being taken against them by the Registrar of Companies. 9. The aforesaid Scheme clearly states, in clause 3 sub-clause (viii) thereof that the Scheme is not to apply in certain situations. Clause 3(viii)( b) further clarifies, as follows :- "This Scheme shall not apply to companies against which action under sub-section (5) of section 560 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Unless for any special reasons that the Court shall otherwise order, the order shall direct that the petitioners do pay to the Registrar of Companies his costs of, and occasioned by, the petition." To my mind, the expression 'shall otherwise order' used in rule 94, as reproduced above, means that although, ordinarily, the costs of the Registrar of Companies must be paid by the petitioner, however, if the Court considers it necessary to do so, it may give other orders in this behalf also. From this it follows that it is open to the Court to issue specific orders departing from the norm by imposing lower or no costs at all, or even levying further additional costs, depending on the circumstances. 14. The facts and circumstances of this case....