TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No. 02/2008 read with Company Petition No. 70 of 2006. On 8th January, 2008, an Order came to be passed by the Hon'ble Company Law Board in Company Petition No. 02 of 2008 which read as under: "Petition mentioned and heard on interim reliefs. Till the Petition is disposed of no general meeting is to be held without the leave of this Board. Reply to be filed by 10/02/2008 and rejoinder by 10/03/2008. Date of hearing denotified on 09/01/2008. Petitioner to serve copies of the Petition on the Respondents along with copies of the order in 3 days." (See Petition page 12.) 4. The Applicants herein are parties to the Company Petition No. 70 of 2006, which is pending disposal before this Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal. The Appellants herein are also parties to the Company Petition No. 02 of 2008 which is also pending before this Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal. 5. An Order came to be passed by the Hon'ble Company Law Board in Company Application No. 471 of 2012 in Company Petition No. 70 of 2006 in or about September 2013 and the said matter was thereafter carried in Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Company Appeal No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive no apparent reason is mentioned by the ROC for striking of the names of the Directors. 6. Hence the Registry is directed to issue a Notice to the ROC to submit the Report on or before the next date of hearing as to why the Directors have been removed from the Registrar of Companies. 7. The matter is adjourned to 20-04-2018." 10. The matter once again came to be heard on 20th April, 2018 where the Hon'ble Tribunal observed that its Order passed on 22nd March, 2018 was yet to be complied with and the representatives for the Respondents undertook to file a Status Report by the next date of hearing. 11. The Registrar of Companies in spite of being made aware of the Order of the Hon'ble Company Law Board, issued a strike off Notice on 4^th September, 2018 bearing reference No. ROC/Section 248/22774/2018/M3193 in Form STK1. The said Notice was replied to by the Advocate for the Appellant by their letter dated 5th October, 2018 informing them about the pendency of this Petition and also drawing their attention to the Order of the Hon'ble Company Law Board. 12. It is pertinent to note that, due to the Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce again heard on 6th November, 2020 on which occasion, last opportunity was given to the Registrar of Companies to submit its report within 10 days from the date of the said Order. 18. The matter was thereafter heard on 23rd November, 2020 on which occasion, Ms. Yogini Chauhan appeared for the Registrar of Companies and sought two weeks' time to file a comprehensive reply and comply with the Orders dated 22nd March, 2018 and 20th April, 2018. 19. The matter was thereafter finally heard on 18th December, 2020 on which occasion, once again none appeared for the Registrar of Companies and the matter was reserved for orders. It was submitted that the Registrar of Companies has given an undertaking to this Hon'ble Tribunal to provide such details as was sought from them by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide their Order dated 22nd March, 2018. The undertaking is recorded in the Order dated 20th April, 2018. Multiple opportunities were given to the Registrar of Companies, however, they did not complied with above said direction of this Court and did not disclose on oath the reason for disqualifying to the Director of the Company despite the Hon'ble Company Law Board's Order. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (pg 11 of Addtional Affidavit). 3. Plant & Machinery, Electrical fitting, Furniture, Computer. Movable Assets:- 1. Stock, Raw Material 24. Notice were issued to the Respondent, but no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 25. The bench has directed RoC to submit his report in spite of that RoC has not submitted his report. As per Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, an opportunity was provided to RoC to submit his report, however RoC failed to submit the same. We are therefore of considered view that in the interest of Justice and Equity, to help Employees, Members, Shareholders, Creditors and Other stakeholders and also to improve ease of doing business, the name of Petitioner Company be restored. 26. We examined the merits of the present appeal as per the provisions of Companies Act (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rule, 2016 and the relevant provision of the act and settled legal position in this respect for the sake of convenience. The relevant provision of Companies Act (Removal of name of companies from Registrar of Companies) Rule, 2016 are "3. (1) ....