2019 (2) TMI 1884

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the NCLT Rules, 2016 by inter alia seeking to direct the Respondent Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore to restore the name of the Company namely M/s. Connect Infrastructure & Projects Private Limited on the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent in terms of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the Company Petition, which are relevant to the issue in question, are as follows: (1) M/s. Connect Infrastructure & Projects Private Limited ('thereinafter referred to as Applicant/Petitioner Company') is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 27.02.2008 with the ROC, Karnataka bearing CIN No. U45200KA2008PTC045422 and is having ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner Company has been getting various business offers for development and Commercial exploitation of the said land owned by the Petitioner Company. (3) It is further stated that the Shareholders of the Petitioner Company assigned the responsibility of filing the annual returns and the audited financial statements of the Petitioner Company with the Respondent to the Accountant of the Petitioner Company and Accountant failed to discharge his duty and quit from the Petitioner Company abruptly without handing over the charge held by him with the Petitioner Company and without filing the annual returns and audited financial statement with the Respondent. The shareholders of the Petitioner Company were unaware of the said failure of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Directors of the Company, it was inter alia mentioned that the Petitioner Company has not been carrying on any business or operations for two immediately preceding financial years nor has filed application u/s 455 of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the Respondent proposes to strike off the name of the Company from the Register of Companies as per Section 248 of the said Act, unless a cause is shown to the contrary within 30 days from the date of receipt of the STK-1 notices. Since no cause was shown either to the physical notices or to the website, Gazette and newspaper notices either by the Company or its Directors, and also since no Balance Sheet or Annual Return was filed by the Petitioner Company till the day on which the list of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the Company. 4. Heard Shri Harish V.S., learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the Parties and extant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Rules made there under. 5. It is not in dispute that the Registrar of Companies has taken impugned action in accordance with law, issued appropriate show cause notice. However, the Petitioner Company failed to avail the opportunity given by the Respondent resulting in striking off name of the Company by publishing notice in STK-7 in the Official Gazette on 24.08.2019 w.e.f 09.08.2019. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he is not disputing the action taken by the ROC but submits that due to absence of Accountant of the Comp....