Delhi High Court
Shiv Ram Sharma vs Registrar Of Companies on 18 December, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:18.12.2012
COMPANY PETITION NO.427 OF 2012
SHIV RAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.K.S.Pradhan, Deputy ROC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This is a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act,
1956 filed by the petitioner Shiv Ram Sharma, one of the promoter
director of M/s Shiv Ram Builder Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
company) seeking restoration of the company which has been struck off
by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
2 The company was incorporated on 02.3.1990; registered office of
the company is situated at 13, Amar Colony, New Delhi. In the year
2006 management of the company appointed a new Chartered
Accountant to look after the company's affair i.e. compliance of income
tax, compliances of ROC and other relevant work; the Chartered
Accountant has not fulfilled compliance of the ROC such as filing of
annual report, balance sheet and other relative statutory documents
which were required by the ROC to show that the company is in
operation. The company has not filed any statutory documents since
1998. In the month of March, 2012 the petitioner has came to know that
the name of the company has been struck off from the register of the
ROC.
3 The company is having charge over its properties, its name and
goodwill, godowns, agency rights, office furniture, equipments and all
its assets and liabilities; in order to utilize the above said properties and
goodwill of the company, revival of the company is very much essential,
just and proper for the benefit of the company and its employees,
founders and promoters. The company is in operation and still has been
filing its annual income tax. Revival of the company would not
prejudice rights of any person or creditor or any other legal entity.
Hence the present petition.
4 Reply has been filed on behalf of Registrar of Companies (ROC).
It is submitted that the petitioner company has not filed its statutory
documents i.e. Annual Returns and Balance Sheet since 1998 which is
in contravention of the Companies Act; the defaulter is liable for
punishment/penalty. Notice of striking off the name of the petitioner
company from the register of the ROC under Section 560(5) of the Act
was given and published in the Official Gazette of India on 31.5.2007.
The ROC, however, has no objection if the name of the Company is
restored in the Register of Companies on the undertaking that the
company will file its pending Annul Returns and Balance Sheets since
1998 till date along with the requisite late filing fee as prescribed under
the law.
5 Keeping in view the aforenoted facts and circumstances as also
the reply filed by the ROC, the petitioner company is permitted to file its
all pending statutory documents i.e. the Annul Returns and Balance
Sheets from 1998 till date on payment of the requisite late filing fee.
Upon the filing of the aforesaid documents within two weeks, the ROC
is directed to restore the name of the petitioner company in the Register
of Companies. This order is passed subject to payment of cost of
Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Central Government. Petition
disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
DECEMBER 18, 2012
nandan
