TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The company had applied for having its name struck off under the Simplified Exit Scheme, 2003 as it did not have the requisite share capital in terms of section 3(3) of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000, which requires a minimum paid-up share capital of Rs. 1 lakh. Consequently, the name of the company was removed from the Register of Companies, by the respondent. 3. Admittedly, the amendment brought about by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000, which inserted sub-clause (3) in section 3, and raised the minimum prescribed share capital for private companies to Rs. 1 lakh, had given an opportunity to all companies whose share capital was below that amount, to bring it up to the required amount within a period of two years. Instead of av....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is is a statutory mandate. An option was available to the petitioner to avail of the same. Instead of doing so, the petitioner took the other course, which was to have its name struck off from the Register of Companies. The petitioner cannot be permitted to come to the Court after about 9 years to, in effect, be granted the same indulgence which was contemplated by the aforesaid section for a limited period of two years after the Amending Act. In the face of an unambiguous and explicit statutory provision, to my mind, it would not be proper for this Court to grant the same benefit after the expiry of the aforesaid period of two years in an indirect fashion. For that reason also, the relief sought cannot be granted. Not only that, even secti....