SHITIZ METALS LIMITED Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this company petition is that the order and the notification striking off the name of respondent No.2-company declaring it as defunct company be set aside and the name of the company be restored and also that investigation be ordered into the affairs of the said company.

(2.) The petition has been filed under the following circumstances. The respondent No.2 i.e. M/s Nicholson Export and Import Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 7.3.1997. The registered office of the company was in Delhi. The directors of the company made an application under Section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act') to the Registrar of Companies under the Easy Exit Scheme, 2011 for striking off the name of the company from the register of companies. The prescribed forms were also filed. The Registrar of Companies by gazette notification dated 6.8.2011 struck off the name of the company under the provisions of section 560(1) of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner company had lent a sum of Rs. 14.80 lakhs in two installments of Rs. 5 lakhs and 9 lakhs to the respondent-company in the years 2003 and 2004. These amounts were given by cheques drawn on the Punjab National Bank. It is not in dispute that the cheques were deposited with the bank and were encashed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Registrar of Companies appears to have issued the gazette notification striking off the name of the respondent company without examining whether the request of the company to strike off its name from the register was made bona fide and after repaying all the debts due to the creditors. He contends that in the balance sheet filed by the respondent company with the ROC as on 21.4.2011, only the authorised capital of Rs. 1 lakh is shown on the liabilities side and an identical amount is shown as debit balance in the profit and loss account in the asset side, and that the amount advanced by the petitioner company is not reflected. It is alleged that the directors of the respondent-company have played a fraud on the petitioner-company by frittering away the funds belonging to the petitioner-company and got its name struck off from the register of companies so as to prevent the petitioner-company from taking any action against it. It is on the basis of these contentions that the prayer referred to earlier has been made in the application.