Judgment:
1. The petitioner is before this Court against the order of the Registrar of Companies dated J 9.05.2010 whereby the petitioner-company has been ordered to be struck of from the register maintained by that, office and has thereafter Gazetted the same on 23.12.2010. The petitioner therefore seeks for an order to restore the name of the petitioner- company in the records of the Registrar of Companies.
2. Though the respondent had been notified in the instant petition, objection has not been filed to the petition.
3. The petitioner-company was incorporated on 09.11.2004 as per the certificate of incorporation as at Annexure-A to the petition. Though the petitioner is stated to have been carrying on its business activity eversince then there is no material produced before this Court to indicate that the returns have been filed annually before the Registrar of Companies as required under law. In that regard, though the Registrar of Companies is staled to have issued the notice, the petitioner contends that they have changed its address relating to place of business. In that circumstance, since no response was received from the petitioner-company, the respondent has passed the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-H) and notification of striking off has been Gazetted on 23.12.2010,
4. To demonstrate before this Court that the petitioner is a going concern the petitioner has relied on the balance sheet for the assessment year 2009-10 as well as for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The registration made under the Value Added Tax and also the filing of the returns under the Income Tax Act is relied on in this regard. It is also pointed out that the company during the assessment year 2011-12 had earned the net profit of Rs.23,22,748/-. It is however the contention of the petitioner that even if the respondent was to initiate the action as presently done, appropriate notice should have been issued and in the absence of the same, the order is not sustainable. As noticed, the respondent has not disputed this contention.
5. Be that as it may, even if such notice has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent, the explanation put forth by the petitioner stating that they are carrying on the business at a different address would have to be kept in view and in any event, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner-company which was incorporated in the year 2004 is still carrying on its business, the striking of the name of the petitioner from the register maintained by the respondent would have its adverse consequence not only on the petitioner-company but on persons who had business relations with the company. Further, the fact that the petitioner is a going concern would have to be kept in view. Needless to mention that if the petitioner has not complied with any of the provisions of the Companies Act, it would still be open for the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law alter providing opportunity to the petitioner.
6. Therefore, in my view, if the prayer made by the petitioner to restore the name of the petitioner in the register of Registrar of Companies is granted, the same would not affect any other person, more particularly it would be in the best interest of all concerned including the petitioner. Therefore, reserving such liberty to the respondent to initiate any other action that is open to them in law the order dated 19.05.2010 and the consequent Gazette notification indicating the name of the petitioner on 23.12.2010 arc set aside. The respondent is directed to restore the name of the petitioner-company in the register maintained by the office of the Registrar of Companies and proceed in accordance with law.
The petition is allowed in the above terms.