TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion No. 55- 009393 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. M/s. Amarpeet Enterprises Private Ltd., is petitioner No. 1, and its Director, Bawa Amarjyot Singh, is petitioner No. 2. 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, default in filing annual returns for the period 30-9-1986 to 30-9-2009 and balance sheets for the period 31-3-1986 to 31-3-2009. Consequently, the Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the name of the company off the Register maintained by his office. It is stated by counsel fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to change the registered office of the company was taken has also been filed. However, no proof has been placed on record by the petitioner of due intimation of this change in its registered office to the respondent in the requisite Form 18. Therefore, it is likely that the petitioners did not receive any notice issued by the respondent under section 560 of Companies Act, 1956 because of their own default. 6. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is within the limitation period stipulated by section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, i.e., 20 years from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. 7. According to the petitioner, the day-to-day affairs of the company were handled by La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced on record. 10. In Purushottamdas v. Registrar of Companies [1986] 60 Comp. Cas. 154, the Bombay High Court, in paragraph 20"The object of section 560(6) of the Companies Act is to give a chance to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, within a period of 20 years, and to give them an opportunity of carrying on the business only after the company Judge is satisfied that such restoration is necessary in the interests of justice." thereof, has held, inter alia, that; "The object of section 560(6) of the Companies Act is to give a chance to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. This principle has been followed in Indian Explosives Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [CP. No. 185 of 2008, dated 21-4-2010. 13. I might notice that rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 states, 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 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 follo....