Disposed

Maxpro Nidhi Ltd. v. Union of India

Kerala HC11 Jan 2023WP(C)/323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the Regional Director of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to consider and decide on the petitioner's pending NDH-4 application for Nidhi Company status within one month if the form was received and pending without orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's NDH-4 application and decide within one month if pending.

Maxpro Nidhi Ltd. Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.323 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAXPRO NIDHI LTD., CIN- U65929KL2019PLN060770, WARD NO.16-975, SANTHIS ARCADE, MALMAL JUNCTION, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD- 678541, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RATHEESH MENON, PIN-678 541.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, A WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110 001.

¶13

2 JOINT SECRETARY,

¶14

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, A WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI.

¶15

3 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, BLOCK 1, 5TH FLOOR, 26, HADDOW'S ROAD, CHENNAI, PIN-600 006.

¶16

4 REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, ERNAKULAM, COMPANY LAW BUILDING, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 021.

¶17

ADV. S. MANU, DSGI

¶18

ADV. MINI GOPINATH, CGC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

-2-

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.323 OF 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2023

¶24

The petitioner was a Nidhi Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 as amended with effect from 15.08.2019 and in terms of Nidhi (Amendment) Rules, 2019. By virtue of Rule 3A of the Rules, the petitioner has to file Form NDH-4 along with fees for getting it declared as a Nidhi Company. The Form has to be filed within 60 days of expiry of one year from the date of incorporation of the Company. According to the petitioner, the NDH-4 Form was filed on 10.03.2021, within the period of exemption granted by the Central Government, based on the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in the wake of Covid-19.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Company will not be able to function, unless the NDH-4 application is processed, and acted upon. In this regard, attention is drawn to Ext.P5 print out taken from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

¶26

-3-

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.323 OF 2023

¶28

The Central Government Counsel submits that the

¶29

NDH-4 application will be considered, if it is received and is pending.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider petitioner's NDH-4 application and take appropriate decision thereon within one month, if the application/form is received and is pending without orders.

¶31

Sd/- V.G. ARUN JUDGE

¶32

bpr

¶33

-4-

¶34

W.P.(C) NO.323 OF 2023

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 323/2023

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INCORPORATION CERTIFICATE DOWNLOADED FROM THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS WEBSITE.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF NDH-4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NDH-1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶40

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE LAST HALF-YEARLY RETURN FILED (NDH-3) FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶41

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ERROR NOTIFICATION DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS.

Maxpro Nidhi Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maxpro Nidhi Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Manoj Raj.R Vs Corporation Bank- 0527

M/S Tulsi Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Biju P. Ayyappan Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Jayasree.K.S. Vs the District Supply Officer

Kp Udayakumar Vs the District Supply Officer

Saramma Varkey Vs the District Collector