Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gouri Shankar Rathi vs Registrar Of Companies on 8 November, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 November 08, 2017 R.C. W.P.25981(W) OF 2017 Gouri Shankar Rathi Vs. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal & Ors.
Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr.Moinak Bose Mr. Nikhil Jhunjhunwala, ...for Petitioner Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, ...for R.O.C. & Ors.
Leave is granted to file supplementary affidavit. The petitioner assails a notice under section 164 (2) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the provisions of Section 164 read with Section 167 of the Act of 2013 does not permit the Registrar of Companies to prevent the petitioner from seeking election as a director in a company recognized under the Act of 2013. In any event, he submits that, in order to establish the bona fides of the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to put in the amount as shown in the balance sheet of the so- called defaulting company as at March 31, 2013. He submits that, the petitioner was a director of a company which was recognized under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Such company had applied for striking of its name during the financial year of 2012-2013. Such application has not been considered till date. Therefore, it is harsh and burdensome on the part of the petitioner to be prevented from seeking election or reelection to a Board of a Company.
2The Union of India is represented The learned advocate for the Union of India submits that, the so-called application for striking of the name of the defaulting company was not submitted before the appropriate authority.
This contention of the Union of India is disputed by the petitioner.
The Registrar of Companies has invoked the provisions of Section 164(2)(a) as against numerous persons, and it includes the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner is guilty of non-filing of returns of the financial years commencing from 2013 and 2016 in respect of a company being Ductile Iron Pipes and Castings Manufacturers Association. Such company apparently is a company recognized under section 25 of the Companies Act of 1956. Apparently, there is an application for striking of the name of the company of such defaulting company. Without entering into the controversy as to whether such application was before the appropriate authority or not, it can be said that the defaulting company had sought to apply for the striking of the name. The balance sheet of the defaulting company as at March 31, 2013 is on record through the supplementary affidavit. Such balance sheet shows that the reserves and surpluses of the company to be about Rs.58,000/- only. There are no other assets in the record of such balance sheet. However, in order to test the bona fides of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to put a sum of Rs.100,000/- with the Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court within one week from date. There will be an unconditional stay of the impugned notice so far as it relates to the petitioner for a period of seven days from date. Such stay will continue for a further period of six months or until further orders, whichever is earlier, in the event the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs.100,000/- with the Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court as directed. Such deposit will abide by the result of the writ petition. The Registrar 3 General is requested to keep such deposit in an interest bearing fixed deposit with any nationalized bank.
Let affidavit in opposition be filed within four weeks from date, reply, thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. The writ petition will be treated as ready for hearing immediately on completion of the time stipulated for filing affidavits.
Liberty to the parties to mention for early hearing. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. ) 4