LAWS(CHH)-2016-2-90

VEEAR MERCANTILE PRIVATE LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 26, 2016
Veear Mercantile Private Ltd Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This company petition under Section 560 (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') has been preferred seeking restoration of the certificate of incorporation of the company, whose name was struck off from the register of the companies sometimes in the year 2007. The applicant company was established to carry on business of whole sale and retail sale of all types of cloths, fabrics, garments, sarees and to act as a commission agent for the above items and to establish branches, depots and also to undertake the business of purchase and sale of plots, lands, buildings, bridges, hotels, clubs, restaurants, baths, places of worships, places of amusements, swimming pools, play grounds, community halls, parks, gardens, reading rooms, schools and for other incidental or ancillary objects.

(2.) Shri Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the company is not in debt nor there is any winding up petition pending before any Court of law against the company. He would refer to para 6 of the application to state that the authorized capital of the company is Rs.16,00,000.00 and the paid up capital is Rs.10,08,900.00 and has no liability outstanding as on date. He would further submit that conditions having improved, the company again desires to enter into the business for which the company was established, therefore, a bona fide prayer for restoration of the company's registration is made in this application.

(3.) In the reply filed by the Registrar of companies-cum-Official Liquidator, Chhattisgarh, it is stated that it has no objection, if the name of the company is restored in the record of the Registrar of companies, however, it has defended its action of striking off the name of the company on submission that there being failure on the part of the company to file statutory documents as required under Section 159 (1) and 220 (1) of the Act, 1956 with the office of the respondents after closing of every financial year, the name has rightly been struck off.