Allowed

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey v. the Registrar of Companies

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012CP/209/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition for restoring the name of Bule Sky Private Limited to the register, subject to compliance with statutory returns, specific sections of the Companies Act, payment of costs, and liberty for fresh proceedings. No order as to costs was made initially.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed on terms including filing statutory returns within eight weeks, complying with specified sections for compounding offences, and payment of Rs. 7,500 costs.

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey Vs the Registrar of Companies — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

cp209.12.sxw

ssm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO. 209 OF 2012

¶7

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey ......Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai

¶10

......Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Shreesh Oak for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. D.P. Singh with Ms. Purnima Awasthi i/by Dr. G.R. Sharma, Registrar of Companies.

¶13

CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 25 SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

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. Bule Sky Private Limited on the register of the Respondent under the provisions of the Companies Act.

¶16

2 By notification dated 3 September 2011, the name of the

¶17

Company was struck off from the register and the Company was dissolved. Considering the averments made in the Petition and also

cp209.12.sxw

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

b) The Petitioner Company to comply with Section 266A to 266G, 159 to 162, 166, 210 and 220 of the

¶24

Companies Act and to make appropriate Application under Section 621A of the Companies Act, for compounding the offences, if any.

¶25

c) The Respondent shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 560, if so advised, against the said company.

¶26

d) Both the parties are agreed that no detailed reasons need to be given in support of this order.

cp209.12.sxw

ssm

e) The Petitioner Company to pay costs of Rs.7,500/along with Form No.21 to the Registrar of Companies.

¶31

f) All points are kept open. g) The Petition is accordingly allowed, with liberty. h) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey v. the Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey v. the Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra a. Shah (H.U.F.) Vs M/s. Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited

Ventura Securities Ltd. Vs Centpercent Investment Ltd.

Mr. Bupal Nana Khichade Vs Shamrao Vithal Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey Vs the Registrar of Companies

Mr. Dilawar Amir Nensey Vs the Registrar of Companies

Metropolis Healthcare Limited Vs --------------