Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 20, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1059647

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Excerpt

cp no.401 of 2012 in the high court at calcutta original jurisdiction original side in the matter of: skaus engineering works pvt.ltd.-and the registrar of companies, w.b.before: the hon'ble justice sanjib banerjee date : december 20, 2012. the court : the registrar is represented and a chart has been filed indicating that a sum of rs.68,000/- would be payable by the company on account of filing fees, additional fees and penalty if the documents required to be filed earlier under the companies act, 1956 with the registrar were to be filed belatedly now. the name of the company has been struck off under section 560 of the 1956 act and the petitioner has applied for restoration of the company’s name. subject to the petitioner paying a sum of rs.90,000/- to the registrar within three weeks from date and depositing all requisite documents within such time, the name of the company will be restored to the list of active companies and the company and its authorized officers will be given access to the relevant portal. the money must be deposited in the same account of the central government where the filing fees and penalty are put in. for a period of two years from date, there should not any delay on the part of the company to file any of the documents and records required to be furnished by the act. the registrar will have authority by virtue of this order to strike off the name of the company upon serving it a previous notice in case of even one day’s delay during such period. c.p.no.401 of 2012 is disposed of as above without any further order as to costs. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (sanjib banerjee, j.) a/s.

Full Judgment

CP No.401 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF: SKAUS ENGINEERING WORKS PVT.LTD.-And THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, W.B.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : December 20, 2012.

The Court : The Registrar is represented and a chart has been filed indicating that a sum of Rs.68,000/- would be payable by the company on account of filing fees, additional fees and penalty if the documents required to be filed earlier under the Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar were to be filed belatedly now.

The name of the company has been struck off under Section 560 of the 1956 Act and the petitioner has applied for restoration of the company’s name.

Subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the Registrar within three weeks from date and depositing all requisite documents within such time, the name of the company will be restored to the list of active companies and the company and its authorized officers will be given access to the relevant portal.

The money must be deposited in the same account of the Central Government where the filing fees and penalty are put in.

For a period of two years from date, there should not any delay on the part of the company to file any of the documents and records required to be furnished by the Act.

The Registrar will have authority by virtue of this order to strike off the name of the company upon serving it a previous notice in case of even one day’s delay during such period.

C.P.No.401 of 2012 is disposed of as above without any further order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial