TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Naren for the respondent. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The prayer sought for is to direct the respondent to restore the name of the petitioner to the Register under Section 560(6) of the Act w.e.f. 27.06.2011, the date on which the company was struck off in the register maintained by the 1st respondent. 4. The petitioner company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 11.04.1986 in the name and style of ''M/s.Paramount Cap Industries Private Limited'' bearing Registration No.12896 of 1986 in the State of Tamil Nadu. During 1992, the name of the company was changed to the present name, namely, ''M/s.Paramount Gensets Industri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IPDIC. The petitioner submitted a Board Resolution authorising two Directors to sign necessary documents for transferring the leasehold right vide letter dated 20.01.2016. Before the company was struck off, there were two Directors, namely, Mr.Premchand Dayaldis Bhatia and the petitioner Mr.Prakash Premchand Bhatia. The 2nd of the Director being the son of the 1st Director. The 1st director, namely, Mr.Premchand Dayaldis Bhatia, the father of the petitioner, expired on 16.07.2011. According to the petitioner, since the company was struck off, and one of the Directors passed away, they could not submit the Board Resolution for transfer of the leasehold right. Therefore, they seek for restoration of the company's name in the Register main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order is passed by the Hon'ble Court for revival of the company, the same has to be subject to the filing of all overdue documents, statutory filing, namely, Annual Return and Balance Sheet from the date of default by the petitioner company with the respondent. Thus, the 1st respondent does not have serious objection to the petitioner requesting for revival of the company subject to the condition of filing of all over due documents, namely, Annual Return and balance sheet from the date of default by the petitioner company with the respondent. Thus, under normal circumstances, the Court without any hesitation would have directed the 1st respondent to consider the plea raised by the petitioner company. However, the Court on 01.06.2016, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as followed by the reminder dated 06.11.2014 and evenafter lapse of 3 months, no reply was received by PIPDIC. Therefore, PIPDIC opined that it cannot allow to keep the factory premises closed for a long time, particularly, when a number of entrepreneurs are seeking for allotment of industrial plots. It is further stated that PIPDIC vide their letters dated 01.12.2015 and 22.1.2016 has requested the petitioner company to furnish the Board Resolution for induction of Mr.Prakash Bhatia as a Director, the Board Resolution authorising two Directors to sign the necessary documents for transfer of the leasehold rights and an acknowledgment from the Registrar of Companies for induction of new Directors. According to PIPDIC, till date, the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he officers of PIPDIC and several correspondences between the company and the PIPDIC would clearly show that they were processing the company's application for grant of ''No Objection Certificate''. In any event, this Court cannot examine this disputed question of fact since this Court is not deciding the correctness of the order passed by PIPDIC dated 23.12.2016. Therefore, it would not be necessary for the Court to state anything further on the issue and the above facts have been set out to show that an order has been passed by PIPDIC to resume possession of the plot-in-question and that order, as of now, remains unchallenged. Be that as it may, this Court is concerned as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der seeking revival of the company and if such application is filed, the Registrar of the Companies shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the rules framed thereunder within a period of four weeks from the date of filing such application complete in all respects. It is clarified that this Court has not decided the correctness of the order passed by PIPDIC dated 23.12.2016. Therefore, any contention advanced by the petitioner in this Company Petition on the validity of the order dated 23.12.2016 is of little avail as the facts or the main issues in these proceedings pertain only to the revival of the company. The action initiated by PIPDIC has not been adjudicated and it is left open to the parties....