Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1356 (PAT)

Aakankcha Security Service And Co. P. Ltd. v. Union Of India

2008-09-05

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2008
Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This company petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, M/s. Aakankcha Security Service and Co. P. Ltd., for a declaration that the petitioner-company is in operation and carrying on business as on date since its incorporation on June 25, 1997 and for setting aside the Gazette Notification No. 33 dated August 18, 2007 at Serial No. 66 communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. RoC/PAT/8001/560/G/8043 dated March 10, 2008, issued under the signature of the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand, by which the name of the petitioner-company had been struck off. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he did not submit the balance-sheets as well as the annual returns of the company for the years 1997-98 to 2005-06 and hence notice under Section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) was sent to the petitioner on November 30, 2006, but thereafter no notice under Section 560(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner within the prescribed time, i.e., one and a half month from the date of the first notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner avers that the address of the petitioner-company was changed much thereafter in March, 2007 and the notice under Section 560(2) of the Act was sent to the company on July 17, 2007. He also avers that no notice was sent by the Registrar under Section 560(3) of the Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that much before issuance of the second notice the petitioner-company had already filed its balance-sheets and annual returns for the years 1997-98 to 2005-06 electronically along with additional fees amounting to nine times of the normal fees under the provision of Section 611(2) read with Schedule 10 of the Act. The same are made as annexure 7 series to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the company was incorporated on June 25, 1997 and started its business as per the memorandum of association and articles of association and since the petitioner-company was in its initial stage therefore, the persons associated with the company were not fully well versed with the procedure to be followed and hence the said delay had taken place. He further submits that stating the aforesaid matter in detail the petitioner filed a petition before the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand on February 28, 2008, but the Registrar vide his letter dated March 10, 2008 (annexure 1) replied that the petitioner should obtain necessary orders from the Hon ble Patna High Court for restoration of the name of the petitioner-company under the provisions of Section 560(6) of the Act and hence the instant petition has been filed. 5. Although learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner but there in no denial of the fact that notice sent under Section 560(2) of the Act was beyond the time prescribed by law and, no notice under Section 560(3) of the Act had at all been sent to the petitioner. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner had filed the balance-sheets and annual returns of the company electronically on March 30, 2007, for the years 1997-98 to 2005-06 with additional fees amounting to nine times of normal fees under the provisions of Section 611(2) read with Schedule 10 of the Act. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this petition is allowed and Serial No. 66 of the Gazette Notification No. 33 dated August 18, 2007, with respect to the petitioner-company is hereby set aside along with the letter of the Registrar of Companies dated March 10, 2008 and the petitioner-company is declared to be in operation and carrying on its business since its incorporation.