2009 (11) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Companies Act by order dated 17.9.2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 6.10.2007. 2. The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was ever served upon it in accordance with the requirements of Sub-sections (1) (2) & (3) of Section 560 of the Companies Act. It is further submitted that the Company is continuously carrying on its business and has, been in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it would be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter and a notice will be published in the Official Gazette by striking off the name of the Company from the register of Companies. It is stated that only on the failure of the petitioner to respond to the notice the final order dated 17.9.2007 was passed which was published in the Official Gazette on 6.10.2007. 4. In the supple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tered post and not the word "shall" as in the previous two sub-sections. 6. In my view there were use of the word "may" does not at all lead to the conclusion that the provision of Sub-section (3) are not mandatory. The pre condition for taking action under Sub-section (5) is inter alia the expiry of time mentioned in the notice referred to it in Sub-section (3). If the said p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... therefore there has been a complete violation of the provisions of Section 560 of the Act. 8. In the said circumstances, the notice dated 17.9.2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 6.10.2007 cannot stand, being contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 560 of the companies Act and it is, accordingly, quashed to the extent it concerns the petitioner Company. 9. Consequentially the n....