2018 (5) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in view of the notice dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 issued under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the respondents disqualifying the petitioner as Directors in the Companies wheresoever they may be Directors. This disqualification has resulted for the reason that there was default in submitting returns which were statutorily required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies with regard to the affairs of the Company in question, for a continuous period of three financial years. 4. The writ petition inter alia seeks quashing of the said notices dated 6th September, 2017 and 12th September, 2017. 5. The matter however does not rest here. Apart from the disqualification under Section 164(2)(a), the w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....company and all directors of the company, it has been contended by the petitioners that such notice had to be issued and served in the manner prescribed by law i.e. in compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016. The petitioners contend that this has not been done and that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners in striking off the name of the company from the register of companies cannot be sustained for this reason as well. 9. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vikram Jetly, learned CGSC learned counsel disputes all these submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted, upon instructions from the Registrar of Companies, that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, for the reason that the names of the Companies in which the petitioners are directors stand struck off, we are informed that the office of the Registrar of Companies would not accept any e-filing by these petitioners. 16. On a perusal of the Scheme, we also find that under Clause 4 of the CODS, the applicant company is required to pay several charges including the fee of Rs. 30,000/- for filing the application. We are informed by Mr. Vikram Jetly, learned CGSC that it would not be possible for the respondents to accept any charges for these companies. 17. It is pointed out by ld. counsel for the respondents that the last date for filing under the CODS-2018 Scheme is 30th April, 2018. However, 30th April, 2018 has been declared as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioners shall, with the deposit, enclose a computation and the basis on which the amount which has been deposited stands calculated. Let a copy thereof be furnished to the respondents. 21. The deposit of the charges with the Registry, and documents with the Registrar of Companies shall be positively made within the time permitted by the Scheme as extended. 22. We make it clear that in case it is held that the petitioners are entitled to avail the CODS-2018 Scheme, the submission of the documents with the Registrar of Companies and deposit made in this court shall be deemed to be compliances and deposits having been effected in due compliance with the requirements of CODS- 2018 Scheme with the respondents of course subject to ma....