TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma, J. : 1. The Appellants have filed this Appeal against Impugned Order dated 10th September, 2018 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (NCLT - in short) in Company Application No.211 of 2018 in Company Appeal No.124/ALD/2018 vide which Order, the NCLT declined to extend period for compliance of filing Returns. 2. The Appellants had filed Company Appeal 124/ALD/2017 before the NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act - in short) for restoration of the name of the Company - Shree Narayan Developers Pvt. Ltd. which had been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh under Section 248 of the Act. The Appellants pointed out to the NCLT in their petition that the Company had been incorpora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 31st March, 2003. 5. The parties were heard before NCLT and by its initial Order dated 3rd August, 2018, NCLT found that the Company had not filed Statutory Returns including Balance Sheet and Annual Returns, etc. after 2003. It found that the original Respondent No.2 had been removed from Directorship on 17th January, 2004. The original Order shows that NCLT found that the Company Petition was still pending and it was observed in para - 6.2 of the original Order as follows:- "6.2 The books and records for the Investigation Auditor, directed by CLB were made available by the respondents making it clear that the records of the company till the removal of R-1 from Directorship were with respondents. The books & records may be o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Respondents. Now, it is the grievance of the Appellants that although in the above initial Order, the NCLT had directed the original Respondents to handover the books and records of the Company to the Appellants, the Respondents 2 and 3 did not comply and went on playing tricks on them to ensure that the Annual Accounts and Annual Returns could not be finalized for filing with ROC. The Appellants claimed that they did deposit Rs. 50,000/- with the ROC in August, 2018. According to them, they requested the Respondents for the books, records, registers and other documents but the Respondents 2 and 3 did not oblige. Consequently, according to the Appellants, they moved the NCLT again with an application on 5th September, 2018 to ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount to modification of our earlier order passed on 3rd August 2018. We have decided this appeal by our order dated 3rd August 2018, after that we do not have any jurisdiction to modify that order. Applicant wants extension of time, this amount to modification of our earlier order, which is not in our jurisdiction. The CA is not maintainable. Hence rejected." 7. We have heard the Counsel for both sides. The Counsel for Appellants has pointed out the above facts from the records to argue that the NCLT should have extended time for filing of the Returns. The Respondents 2 and 3 have filed Reply and they are arguing to put the blame on the Appellants and claimed that it is the Appellants who failed to discharge their statutory duties as Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust, 2018 was in para - 7.2 reproduced above, which related to deposit of sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Before us, there is no dispute that the Appellant did deposit Rs. 50,000/- in August, 2018 itself with ROC. Apart from this, although NCLT had directed filing of the Statutory Returns within 30 days in para - 7, in view of existence of specific provision in the form of Rule 153 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, the NCLT had sufficient powers to extend time. Rule 153 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 read as under:- "153. Enlargement of time.- Where any period is fixed by or under these rules, or granted by Tribunal for the doing of any act, or filing of any document or representation, the Tribunal may, in it....