2010 (4) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of Incorporation No. 55-59689 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. Petitioner No. 2 is Mr. Anand Kashyap, a Director of petitioner No. 1. 3. The petitioner-company is stated to be engaged in the business of automobile and vehicle trading and related services. 4. The Registrar of Companies, i.e., the respondent herein, struck the petitioner No. 1's name off the Register for defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file balance-sheets for the period 31-3-1999 to 31-3-2008 and failure to file annual returns for the period 30-9-1999 to 30-9-2008. The respondent had initiated proceedings under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the name of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filing the returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted the returns and other necessary documents were not filed with the Registrar of Companies as "the said firm has not carried out the job entrusted upon them". It is further submitted that it was only sometime in December 2008, that the fact of non-filing of the returns and balance sheets, well as the fact that the petitioner No. 1's name had been struck off the Register maintained by the respondent, was known to the petitioners. 8. Counsel for the respondent does not have any objection to the revival of the company, subject to the petitioners filing all outstanding statutory documents, i.e., annual returns for the period 30-9-1999 to 30-9-2008, and balance s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r full-time, defaults in his duties, the primary responsibility for ensuring statutory compliances, as per sections 159 and 200 of the Companies Act, 1956, remain that of the management. At the same time, the company is stated to be functioning one, and as held in Purushottamdass' case (supra), therefore, it is only proper that the impugned order of the respondent, which struck off the petitioner's name from the Register of Companies, be set aside. 11. I might notice that rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 state, inter alia, as follows : "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 pe....