Samarth Matoshree Estates Pvt. Ltd vs Roc, Pune

Samarth Matoshree Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

ROC, Pune ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: -Mr. Shrut Agrawal, Advocate

ORDER

20.07.2018─ The Member of appellant preferred an application under

Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 praying for restoring the name of

the appellant in the Register maintained by Registrar of Companies, Pune.

The National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal')

taking into consideration the relevant documents which were ready with the

Company and as the Company was willing to file the same and that the

Audited Report and financial statement for the year ended 31st March 2017,

Income Tax Return for Assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were

enclosed to show that the company is in continuous operation, allowed the

application and order for restoration of the name of the Company in the

Register of the Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

2. However, while passing such order of restoration by impugned order

dated 27th March 2018 in C.P.No. 587/252/NCLT/MB/MAH/2018, the

Tribunal imposed cost of Rs. 7/- lakhs (Rs. Seven Lakhs only) on the appellant company for payment in favour of Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

Mumbai.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears on

behalf of the respondent - Registrar of Companies, Pune.

4. However, we find that the Registrar of Companies is also not a

necessary party but a formal party so far as it relates to imposition of cost is

concerned, which has been ordered to be paid in favour of the Ministry of

Corporate Affairs, Mumbai.

4. In view of the fact that the Member of the Company has made out clear

case for restoration of the Company's name which has been noticed by the

Tribunal, we hold that the Tribunal erred in imposing cost on the appellant

which was uncalled for.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the part of the order at paragraph 11,

whereby cost of Rs.7/- Lakhs (Rs. Seven Lakhs only) has been imposed on

the appellant is set aside. The rest part of the order dated 27th March 2018

is upheld.

6. The appeal is allowed to the extent above. No cost.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) sm/uk