Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kishanpura Poultry Farms Private ... vs The Registrar Of Companies on 18 February, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CP No.124 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.P. No.124 of 2013
Decision : 18.02.2014
Kishanpura Poultry Farms Private Limited
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Registrar of Companies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh
..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr.A.S.Narang, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate,
for the respondent(s).
*****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
*****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
Mr.Hooda submits that the Registrar of Companies can strike off the name of a company from the register of companies maintained by them but cannot restore it. The prayer in this petition is for restoration of the name of the company in the Register of Registrar of Companies. It is only the Company Court that has jurisdiction to do so under Section 560 (6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the respondent company was struck off for the reason that it did not make timely compliance of furnishing its annual audited balance sheets and annual returns for a number of years. Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.14 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CP No.124 of 2013 2
Mr.Narang submits that the Company is now intending to start business and its name should be restored on the record of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) to enable it to proceed to do business.
Mr.Hooda learned counsel appearing for the Registrar of Companies does not oppose the prayer and submits that it is only the Company Court which can make order and not the Registrar of Companies.
The prayer of the petitioner appears to be fair and I see no reason why the name of the company should not be ordered to be restored to enable it to do business. However, on restoration of the name of the company, it is made clear that if it does not do business and its name is again struck off, then this Court may not show any further indulgence. The petitioner company would complete all formalities required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the rules made thereunder.
After compliance are made, the Registrar of Companies is directed to restore the name of the company on the live register of companies.
Mr.Hooda submits that for no reason, the Registrar of Companies is going to be put to extra administrative burden and his office deserves to be compensated in public interest for no fault of it and for negligence shown on the part of the petitioner in not doing business and getting its name struck off. There appears to be some merit in this submission.
Public servants cannot be unnecessarily saddled with extra work without parties for whom favourable orders are to be passed under the directions of this Court and deserve to be compensated for the time spent and cost incurred by Government for extra paper work. Therefore, the Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.14 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CP No.124 of 2013 3 petitioner would pay ` 50,000/- to the respondent for restoration of its name on the rolls of the said register. Costs have been imposed under the provisions of Rule 94 of the Company Court (Rules), 1959.
Mr.Narang submits that the name of the company may be directed to restore forthwith and compliance(s) to follow.
Ordered accordingly.
It is made clear that after the formalities are completed to the satisfaction of the Registrar of Companies, he may then call upon the petitioner to deposit ` 50,000/- as ordered.
Petition stands disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE February 18, 2014 Paritosh Kumar Kumar Paritosh 2014.03.14 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document