Delhi High Court - Orders
Mukesh Soni & Anr vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs & Anr on 25 February, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:26.02.2021
23:19:46
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2624/2021 & CM APPL. 7773/2021
MUKESH SONI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashish Middha, Advocate.
versus
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR.. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Awadesh Kr. Singh, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 25.02.2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The Petitioners were directors in M/s Maya Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The said company was struck off from the Register of companies in 2017 for non-filing of its balance sheets and annual returns. At the same time, the Petitioners were disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 in August, 2018 w.e.f. 1st November, 2016 to 31st October, 2021 and their DINs/DSCs were also deactivated.
3. M/s Maya Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has now been restored vide order dated 31st December, 2020. The order of the NCLT reads as under:
"6. The provisions pertaining to restoration of the name of the company has been provided in section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 which includes that, if it is just and equitable to restore the name of the company in the Registrar of Companies, it may direct the RoC to restore the name in its Register.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:26.02.2021 19:35 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.02.2021 23:19:46
7. The appellant has been able to satisfy this Bench that it has complied with the statutory requirements and has certain assets which necessitate and justify restoration of its name in the Register of Companies. A step as stringent as what has been taken at least requires an opportunity to the appellant to take remedial measures. Merely to disallow restoration on grounds of its failure to file annual returns would neither be just nor equitable. As per several decisions of various Courts it should only be in exceptional circumstances that Courts should refuse restoration where the company has been struck off for its failure to file annual return as that would be excessive or inappropriate penalty for that oversight.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The restoration of the Appellant Company's name in the Register will be subject to their filing all outstanding documents for the defaulting years as required by law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns. The name of the petitioner company shall then stand restored in the Register of the Registrar of Companies (RoC), as if its name of the company had not been struck off"
4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioners accordingly prays that since the company is now active, their DINs/DSCs may be restored so that the Petitioners can undertake the compliances.
5. In view of the fact that the company has been restored, the disqualification is set-aside and the DINs/DSCs of the Petitioners shall be reactivated within a period of one week.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:26.02.2021 19:35 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:26.02.2021 23:19:466. The Petitioners are also permitted to avail of the Condonation of Delay Scheme dated 15th January, 2021 in order to file the necessary compliances.
7. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2021 dj /T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:26.02.2021 19:35