Rakhee Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Registrar Of Companies
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 245 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs on a company whose name was restored under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not justified where the restoration application was filed immediately after the striking-off, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the outstanding audited reports and financial statements had been enclosed with it. An order of the Tribunal allowing restoration under Section 252 does not, by itself, bar the Registrar of Companies from taking penal action under the Companies Act for earlier non-filing of audited reports and financial statements, where any such provision exists under the Companies Act, 1956 or 2013.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rakhee Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Registrar of Companies ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Sood and Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocates
ORDER
20.08.2018 The appellant filed the application under Section 252 of the
Companies Act, 2013 for restoring the name of the company in the Registrar of
Companies. Earlier the name of the company was struck off by the Registrar of
Companies by publishing a public notice dated 28th July, 2017, immediately
thereafter the application under Section 252 was filed. The National Company
Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the Annual
Returns and Financial Statements for the financial years ended 31st March, 1991
to 31st March, 2017 and as the remaining documents are ready, allowed the
application. However, while allowing the application the Tribunal imposed cost
of Rupees Ten lakhs on the appellant by the impugned order dated 12th April,
2018. The grievance of the appellant is limited to the imposition of the cost
which according to the appellant is not justified.
Notice was issued on Registrar of Companies, but no reply has been filed
raising any objection.
2
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and taking into
consideration the fact that the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant has
enclosed the Audited Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31st
March 1991 to 31st March 2017 allowed the petition and that the application
was filed immediately after striking off its name of the company, we are of the
view that it was not a fit case for imposition of the cost on the appellant.
However, it does not mean we have held that for delayed filing of the Audited
Report and Financial Statements for the year ended between 31st March, 1991
and 31st March, 2017, no penal order can be passed under the Companies Act,
2013.
For the reasons aforesaid, while we set aside the order dated 12th July,
2018 passed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench so far it relates to the imposition
of cost of Rupees Ten Lakhs on the appellant giving liberty to the Registrar of
Companies to pass order for not filing the Audited Reports and Financial
Statements between the years ended 31st March, 1991 and 31st March, 2017, if
there is any such provision under the Companies Act, 1956 / 2013.
The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial) ns/uk
Company Appeal (AT) No. 245 of 2018
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