The High Court of Bombay allowed the Company Petition for restoring the name of Samdarshi Agrotech Private Limited on the register. The Company was previously struck off in September 2011.
Restoration of the company's name on the register, supported by compliance with statutory provisions, payments, and potential compounding of offences.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
cp208.12.sxw
1
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 208 OF 2012
Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey ......Petitioner.
Vs.
The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai
......Respondent.
Mr. Shreesh Oak for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.P. Singh with Ms. Purnima Awasthi i/by Dr. G.R. Sharma, Registrar of Companies.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 25 SEPTEMBER 2012.
P.C.:-
The Company Petition is taken out by the Director of the Petitioner Company under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, “the Companies Act”) for revival, thereby prayed to restore M/s. Samdarshi Agrotech Private Limited on the register of the Respondent under the provisions of the Companies Act.
Company was struck off from the register and the Company was dissolved. Considering the averments made in the Petition and also
cp208.12.sxw
2
ssm
the reply filed by the Respondent-Registrar of Companies and as there is no serious objection for grant of this prayer i.e. restoration of the name of the Company, however subject to certain conditions so referred, I am inclined to allow this Petition in terms of prayer clause (a) on the following terms and conditions.
a) The Petitioner Company shall file all statutory returns and compliances electronically under the various provisions of the Companies Act, with the Registrar of the Companies within a period of eight weeks.
b) The Petitioner Company to comply with Section 266A to 266G, 159 to 162, 166, 210 and 220 of the
Companies Act and to make appropriate Application under Section 621A of the Companies Act, for compounding the offences, if any.
c) The Respondent shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 560, if so advised, against the said company.
d) Both the parties are agreed that no detailed reasons need to be given in support of this order.
cp208.12.sxw
3
ssm
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for revival of a struck-off company should be allowed subject to compliance with statutory obligations.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey
The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
