In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Company Petition No.10/2010 Amit Pabuwal Vs.The Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan Date Of Order :: 26/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajendra Salecha, for petitioner. Mr. Amol Vyas, for respondent.
Notices were issued to the respondent who is now represented by his counsel. Matter has come up on application filed by the petitioner u/r.9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. However, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the application as well as the petition has been heard finally and both are being disposed off by the present order.
Instant petition has been filed u/s.560(6) of the Companies Act,1956 for restoration of the name of the company which at one stage was struck off by the Registrar of Companies after complying with the statutory requirement provided under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Act. It has been averred in the present petition that the notices if any issued by the Registrar of Companies under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Act were never served upon the company, in absence whereof, decision taken by the Registrar of Companies for striking off the name of the company exercising power under sub-section (5) of Section 560 of the Act is wholly arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled to get the name of the company restored.
However, no reply of the present petition has been filed but the counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is a legal requirement for every company to submit their annul returns u/s.159 of the Act and indisputably the present company, petitioner herein, failed to furnish their annul returns for almost five preceding years and thus Registrar of Companies has reason to believe that company is not running its business nor in operation and only after making compliance of sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Act and when no reasonable cause came forward justifying as to why annual returns were not submitted which is the statutory requirement under law, decision was taken by the Registrar of Companies to struck off the name of the company and being duly published in the official gazette as well. Counsel for respondent further submits that there is no reasonable cause shown by the petitioner in the present petition but at the same time they have no objection in restoring the name of the company as prayed for but at least cost may be imposed in regard to the expenses being incurred by the Registrar of Companies in initiating actions for making compliance of statutory requirement.
This Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The averment has been made by the petitioner in para 4.3 of the petition that notices under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 560 of the Co. Act were not served upon the petitioner. But there is a reasonable basis to believe when the company has failed to furnish the annual returns for more than five preceding years despite there being a requirement U/s 159 of the Co. Act and a reasonable justification for Registrar of Companies in taking action U/s 560 of the Co. Act. However, in the facts of the instant case the company has been able to justify as to why in the preceding years annul returns could not have been furnished despite there being statutory requirement U/S 159 of the Co. Act, that apart it can be considered by this Court in the interest of justice for restoration of the name of the company provided the statutory mandate of law being complied with by the petitioner.
Consequently, petition stands allowed. The respondent is directed to restore name of the Company (Pabuwal Projects & Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) in the Register of Companies maintained by respondent. Appropriate order may be passed for restoration of the name of the Company. However, it is made clear that the Company will furnish its balance sheet and annual returns for all preceding financial years which could not have been furnished to the Registrar of Companies, in terms of relevant provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. The cost of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) may also be deposited with the Registrar of Companies.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
VS Shekhawat/-p.4
10CoP10Aug26FnlAllw.do