TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 before striking off its name from the register of the Registrar of Companies and therefore, the order has been passed against the basic principles of natural justice. It is claimed that the petitioner company was carrying on its business/operations at the time of passing the order on 31.05.2007 which was later published in the official gazette on 23.06.2007 (Annexure II). The petitioner further claimed that it has been preparing its annual accounts regularly and getting the same audited by statutory auditors. The annual accounts are also approved by the members of the company in a duly convened the Annual General Meeting of all the Members in accordance with the time prescribed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the job for preparation and filing of the Income Tax Returns, Annual Accounts and the Annual Returns of the petitioner company was entrusted to a firm of Chartered Accountants, The said firm of the Chartered Accountants did not carry out the job entrusted to them and on account of non-filing of the returns, the name of the petitioner company has been struck off. However, no annual a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nagar, New Delhi 110031. 10 Shares 2. Shri Mahaveer Prashad, 7477, Gali No. 7, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi 110031 10 Shares" Thus, an objection has been raised as to how petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming to be directors and the shareholder in the petitioner No. 1 company and in that regard, they may be asked to furnish strict proof of its name. 7. The Registrar has also claimed that notice dated 31.05.2007 to strike off the name of the petitioner company from the register of Registrar of Companies under section 560 (5) of the Companies Act, 1956 was given and the order has been published in the official gazette on 23.06.2007. 8. The claim of the petitioner of entrusting the job to statutory auditor has also been controverted. According to the Registrar the copy of the statutory returns placed on record with the petition shows that the professional firm M/s. Satyendra Mrinal & Associates had timely prepared the accounts and submitted the same. The accounts were also adopted by the company. The assertion of the petitioner company raised in paras 8 and 14 of the petition has been specifically refuted by asserting that the petitioner company has made self-destructing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de for a period of six consecutive months, the Registrar shall publish in the Official Gazette and send to the company or the liquidator, if any, a like notice as is provided in sub-section (3). (5) At the expiry of the time mentioned in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or (4), the Registrar may, unless cause to the contrary is previously shown by the company, strike its name off the register, and shall publish notice thereof in the Official Gazette; and on the publication in the Official Gazette of this notice, the company shall stand dissolved: Provided that - (a) the liability, if any, of every director, manager or other officer who was exercising any power or management, and of every member of the company, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved; and (b) nothing in this sub-section shall affect the power of the Court to wind up a company the name of which has been struck off the register. (6) If a company, or any member or creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the [Tribunal], on an application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the pub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of Section 560 (1) to (4) are deemed to be the whole procedure culminated in publishing a Notification dated 23.06.2017 followed. There is no room to doubt about any lapse on the part of the Registrar of Companies, The record being old has been shifted to Manesar and is reported to be untraceable. 12. There is another aspect concerning principles of natural justice assuming there is violation. When the Courts exercise jurisdiction to quash an order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice then another mitigating principle comes in play. If the result of quashing an order would result in revival of an illegal order then jurisdiction to quash an order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice need not be exercised. For the aforesaid we place reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt, of A.P., AIR 1966 SC 828 and Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [1999] 8 SCC 16. If the order of the Registrar as published in the gazette dated 23.06.2017 is set aside it would give rise to activities which have become illegal as there is wholesome violation of the pr....