Allowed

Sarayu Infotech Solutions Private Limited v. the Registrar of Companies

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2014COP/28/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this company petition, the court directed the Registrar of Companies to restore the petitioner's struck-off name to the Register, subject to the petitioner complying with filing requirements and paying fees within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the company name to the Register subject to compliance with filing requirements and payment of fees within 90 days.

Sarayu Infotech Solutions Private Limited Vs the… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶4

COMPANY PETITION No.28 OF 2014

¶5

BETWEEN: Sarayu Infotech Solutions Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director Sri. Ravichandra, No.177, 12^th ‘A’ Cross, 2^nd Floor, West of Chord Road, Mahalakshmipuram 2^nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 089, Karnataka.

¶6

… PETITIONER

¶7

(By Shri. Girish B Mangannavar, Advocate) AND:

¶8

The Registrar of Companies, 2^nd Floor, E Wing, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034.

¶9

…RESPONDENT (By Shri. B. Pramod, C.G.C., for Registrar of Companies )

¶10

¶11

¶12

This Company Petition filed under Section 560[6] of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 11[21] of the Companies [Court] Rules, 1959, praying to direct the respondent to restore the name of the petitioner company to the Register under Section 560[6] of the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 01.08.2008 [date on which it was struck off]; and etc;

¶13

This Company Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: -

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

It is the petitioner’s case that it is a Private Limited

¶17

Company incorporated in the year 2002 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, which has its registered office at Bangalore.

¶18

The respondent, by its notification dated 1.8.2008 had struck off the name of the petitioner - company from the Register of companies and the petitioner had therefore filed a petition under Section 560 sub-section (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking an order for restoration of the records of the Company in the respondent’s

¶19

¶20

office. The petitioner claims that this petition is filed within the prescribed limitation period of 20 years as specified under Section 560 of the Act and seeks to invoke the right available. Apparently, the petitioner was not carrying on its business and it is only after a gap of several years that returns were sought to be filed in the year 2008 and it was then realized that its name had been struck off from the records. It is thereafter that the present petition is filed.

¶21

The petitioner claims that the petitioner was never put on

¶22

notice before the Registrar of Companies struck off the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that its annual accounts have been prepared and approved by the shareholders and the same are ready for being filed and hence, seeks a direction to the Registrar of Companies to restore the petitioner’s name in the register, as aforesaid.

¶23

The learned counsel for the Registrar of Companies has filed objections that it would have no objection in restoring the name of the company, provided it is not defunct and continues to

¶24

¶25

carry on its business or is in operation and the Company files its returns under Section 159 and Balance Sheet under Section 220 of the Companies Act for the financial year 2002-2003 to 2012-2013 with the requisite fee and additional fee, as required under Section 611 of the Companies Act and to get such offences compounded by the Company Law Board.

¶26

In view of the above, it is for the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed and on such compliance, the name of the petitioner shall be restored in the record, namely the Register

¶27

of Companies, in terms of Section 560 of the Companies Act. It is necessary that the petitioner should comply with the conditions forthwith, in any event, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶28

Sd/- JUDGE

¶29

Sarayu Infotech Solutions Private Limited v. the Registrar of Companies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarayu Infotech Solutions Private Limited 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

Sri L Krishnappa Vs the Commissioner

Valerian Rodrigues Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Anita Purnesh Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka International Education Vs the State of Karnataka

T P Muninarayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Pali Education Society (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka