2010 (2) TMI 1245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vate limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. It is stated to have carried on the business of manufacture and distribution of toys. 3. The Registrar of Companies, i.e. the respondent herein, struck the petitioner company's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances which are required under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, namely, failure to file balance-sheets for the period 31.03.2001 to 31.03.2009 and failure to file annual returns for the period 30.09.2001 to 30.09.2009. 4. The respondent had 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 the respondent. It is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that after that, due to the illness of Shri Dhamija's wife, the secretarial department of the petitioner company was entrusted with the work related to filing forms and returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies, but that the department failed to do so, because of the non-availability of a person having the required skills for the same. It is further submitted that it was only in 2008 that the fact of non-filing of the returns and other documents with the Registrar of Companies, as well as the fact that the petitioner company's name had been struck off the Register maintained by the respondent, was known to the petitioner company. 8. Counsel for the respondent does not have any objection to the revival of the compa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, CP No. 297/2009. 10. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is a running company; that it has filed this petition within the stipulated limitation period, and to the decision of the Bombay High Court, this petition deserves to be allowed. However, a greater degree of care was certainly required from the petitioner company in ensuring statutory compliances. Looking to the fact that the returns have not been filed for a period of almost 8 years, to my mind, this is not merely a case of mistake on the part of the secretarial department of the petitioner company, who are its employees. The primary responsibility for ensuring that proper returns and other statutory documents are filed....