Leena D. Bagwe vs The Registrar Of Companies, Mumbai
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 40 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The quantum of costs imposed by the Tribunal on restoration of a struck-off company's name must be justified on the face of the impugned order; an order imposing costs without stating reasons for the amount is liable to be interfered with in appeal, and the appellate body may substitute a reasonable sum in the facts of the case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ms. Leena D. Bagwe ...Appellant Versus The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai ...Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Prakash K. Pandya, PCS For Respondent: None
ORDER
23.06.2020 Heard the Learned Practising Company Secretary for the
Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against Impugned Order dated 07th
January, 2020 pronounced by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai
Bench, Mumbai in C.P. No. 1461/252/MB/2019. The Prayer of the Appeal is
only challenging the portion of the Impugned Order where costs of Rs. 7 Lakhs
have been imposed by the Ld. NCLT while deciding the C.P No.
1461/252/MB/2019 on 07th January, 2020.
2. By the Impugned Order, Ld. NCLT noticed that the Appellant was
incorporated on 17th December, 1991 and the Appellant came to be struck off on
04th December, 2018 as it had not filed Annual Returns since incorporation. In
Para 10 of the Impugned Order, the Restoration of the name of the Company was
allowed subject to payment of costs Rs. 7 Lakhs.
3. In this matter, Notice was issued on the last date. We do not have the
Respondent/RoC before us. Even otherwise, costs would be a matter of judicious
consideration by the Ld. NCLT and in Appeal by us.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 40 of 2020 2
4. The Impugned Order does not show as to why such a huge costs of Rs. 7
lakhs have been imposed. Mr. Prakash K. Pandya, Practising Company Secretary
states that this Tribunal may substitute the costs imposed by any reasonable
amount.
5. Going through the matter, it appears to us that in the facts of the case, in
place of Rs. 7,00,000/-, costs should be Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only/-
. In the Impugned Order, in place of "Rs. 7,00,000/-" read "Rs.1,50,000/-".
6. We make it clear that this Order will not come in the way of RoC to recover
other statutory penalties/dues/filings, liable to be paid by the Appellant, as per
law.
The Appeal is disposed of.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
Basant B./md /
Company Appeal (AT) No. 40 of 2020
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free