2010 (9) TMI 1276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. The Registrar of Companies, i.e. the respondent herein, struck the petitioner's name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns and balance sheets in respect of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the petitioner's name off the Register maintained by the respondent. It is stated that the procedure prescribed under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 was followed, notices as required under Section 560(1), Section 560(2), Section 560(3) and, ultimately, under Section 560(5) were issued, and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the insurance premium for the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, have been annexed to this petition. 5. It is also submitted by the petitioner that it had prepared and maintained all statutory documentation, including accounts that were audited every year, and that it had engaged the services of Vijay Bhatia & Co., Chartered Accountants, to perform the task of filing the documents with the respondent's office. It is submitted that the aforesaid Chartered Accountant firm did not file the returns and other necessary documents with the respondent. It is further submitted that it was only in March 2009, when the petitioner tried to file Form 32 electronically, that the fact that it's name had been struck off the Register, was kno....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces remains that of the management. Yet, looking to the fact that the company is functional; that this petition has been filed within the prescribed limitation period, i.e. within 20 years from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette; and to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Purushottamdas and Anr. (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) v. Registrar of Companies (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed. 9. I might notice that Rule 94 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 states, inter alia, as follows; Unless for any special reasons that the Court shall otherwise order, the order shall direct that the petitioners do pay to the Registrar of Companies his costs of, and occasioned by, the petition. To my mind, the ....