Skip to content
How to use Download this judgment as PDF
  1. Log in with a plan that includes downloads.
  2. Click Download on the judgment page.
  3. Save the PDF to your device for offline reading or filing.

Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 24, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1102021
Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Bonus Feature

AI Studio

Get a comprehensive AI Brief with 18 structured sections - case summary, facts, prior history, citations, ratio, acts, and more - plus case-scoped chat. Brief the matter in minutes, not hours.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

How to use AI Studio (bonus feature)
  1. Open a judgment with AI Studio on your plan.
  2. Click Open AI Studio on the case page.
  3. Review the AI Brief and ask questions in Ask the judgment - verify against the full text.

Excerpt

.....portal to the company and its authorised officers.the money will be deposited in the same account of the central government where filing fees and penalties in such regard are usually received. in default of the payment within the time indicated, cp no.526 of 2013 will stand dismissed with costs. for a period of two years from date, the petitioner will have to file its records and documents with the registrar within the time permitted by statute; or else, the registrar will be authorised to strike off the name of the company upon previous notice to it. the petitioner under section 560(6) of the act is disposed of, as above. the petitioner will pay costs assessed at 500 gms to be deposited with the state legal services authorities. (harish tandon, j.) akb/

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET C.P.No.840 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : SUMAN COMMERCIAL PVT.LTD.AND REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 24th December, 2013.

Appearance : Mr.Jaydip Banerjee, Adv.… for the U.O.I.The Court : The petition is for resurrecting a company which has been struck off the list of functioning companies under Section 560 (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the statutory records and documents not having been filed.

The Registrar has filed a statement indicating therein that a total amount of Rs.40,000/- on account of filing fees, additional filing fees and penalty would be the due from the company to the Central Government if the statutory records not filed earlier were to be filed now.

The petitioner accepts such position and is agreeable to pay the amount.

Subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Registrar of Companies within a fortnight from date, the Registrar will restore the name of the company to the list of active companies and allow access of the relevant portal to the company and its authorised officeRs.The money will be deposited in the same account of the Central Government where filing fees and penalties in such regard are usually received.

In default of the payment within the time indicated, CP No.526 of 2013 will stand dismissed with costs.

For a period of two years from date, the petitioner will have to file its records and documents with the Registrar within the time permitted by statute; or else, the Registrar will be authorised to strike off the name of the company upon previous notice to it.

The petitioner under Section 560(6) of the Act is disposed of, as above.

The petitioner will pay costs assessed at 500 GMs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authorities.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) akb/


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial