Delhi High Court
M/S. Barvee Computer And Softtoys ... vs The Registrar Of Companies on 22 December, 2014
$~19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET.528/2014
M/S. BARVEE COMPUTER AND SOFTTOYS PRIVATE
LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alok Kumar
Kuchhal, Advocate.
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Atma Sah, Asst. ROC
CORA M:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 22.12.2014
1. The present petition has been filed under Section
560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for restoration of
the name of the company Barvee Computer and
Softtoys Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner Company) in the register of the Registrar of
Companies.
2. The Petitioner Company was incorporated vide
certificate of incorporation dated 13.03.1996, as a
private limited company.
=====================================================
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company submits
that the objects of the Petitioner Company are to carry
on the business of sale, purchas e, import, export of
Computers and Soft toys.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company submits
that Petitioner Company in order to file certain
statutory documents with the office of the Registrar of
Companies, the respondent, was shocked to know that
no documents of the Petitioner Company are being
uploaded on the MCA Portal. Thereafter, the Petitioner
Company searched the web portal of the Minist ry of
Corporate Affairs, and found that the status of the
Company has been shown as strike off in the Company
master details including several other discrepancies.
5. Further, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Company
submits that thereafter, the Petitioner Company through
their Authorized Representative inspected the official
record on the MCA Portal and was able to inspect only
few of the documents. The Petitioner Company was
informed by the officials of the Registrar of
Companies, that the name of Petitioner Company has
been struck off and has been declared defunct for
which a list of defunct companies was produced in
=====================================================
which the name of the petitioner company figured. It is
submitted that it was only then that the fact of non-fling
of the returns and other documents with the respondent,
as well as the fact that the Petitioner Company's name
had been struck off the Register maintained by the
respondent, was know n to the Petitioner Company. It is
submitted that the Petitioner Company had no
knowledge of the said removal.
6. It is stated that the shareholders and directors have
passed a Resolution seeking revival of the Petitioner
Company as in the present business scenario there is a
possibility of doing good business and procuring good
business in construction segment.
7. Further, it is submitted that the name of the Petitioner
Company was struck off from the register of the
Registrar of Companies and was published in the
Gazette of India dated June 23- June 29, 2007.
8. Notice was issued to the Registrar of Companies who
has filed a reply disputing that procedure was not
followed. It is contented that the procedure was duly
followed and due intimation and notice was given to
the Petitioner Company prior to striking off the nam e
=====================================================
of the Petitioner Company.
9. The Registrar of Companies has submitted that the
Petitioner Company has not filed its statutory
documents i.e. Annual Returns from 1997 to 2014 and
Balance Sheets as at 1997 to 2014. Further, it submits
that as per the record maintained by the office of the
answering respondent, Mrs. Meenu Singh and Mrs.
Kalawati were the directors and after incorporation
form 32 was filed by Petitioner Company with the
office of answering respondent on 10.04.1996 for
change in directorship of company.
10. In view of the Affidavit filed by the Respondent
Company, the Registrar of Companies does not have
any objection with the restoration of the name of the
Petitioner Company subject to the filing of all statutory
documents i.e., Annual Returns from the years 1997 to
2014 and Balance Sheets as on 1997 to 2014 and also
the other documents with the requisite fee as well as
additional fee as applicable on the date of actual filing
of the documents.
11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Subject to
payment of costs of Rs. 75,000/-, the name of the
=====================================================
Petitioner Company is restored on the Register of the
Registrar of Companies and further subject to the
Company filling all the statutory documents and returns
for the outstanding period along with the prescribed
fees in accordance with the law.
12. Accordingly, upon payment of costs of Rs.75,000/ -
within a period of two weeks from today, name of the
Petitioner Company shall stand restored.
13. On receipt of the cost, the Registrar of Companies shall
change the status of the company as "Active". The
petitioner shall thereafter make the necessary statutory
compliances and file the statutory documents with the
requisite fee and additional fee as applicable.
14. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
15. Copy of order be given Dasti under Signature of the
Court Master
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2014
sv
=====================================================
