Ventron Fincom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1060731
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnFeb-26-2013
JudgeBANERJEE
AppellantVentron Fincom Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentRegistrar of Companies, West Bengal
Excerpt:
order sheet apo no.460 of 2012 with cp no.593 of 2011 in the high court at calcutta civil appellate jurisdiction ventron finco.pvt.ltd.versus registrar of companies, west bengal before: the hon'ble justice banerjee the hon'ble justice dr. mrinal kanti chaudhuri date :26. h february, 2013. mr.debangshu basak, mr.soumik ghosh for the appellant. mr.sourav chakraborty, mr.anish dutta for the respondent. the court : the name of the company was struck off in 2008. upon coming to know, the company made an application for restoration after about three years.the company contended before the learned single judge, they were carrying on advertising business. learned judge did not find any such business in the memorandum of association as one of its principle object. learned judge was also doubtful about the functioning of the company. his lordship dismissed the application. hence this apeal. we have heard mr.debangshu basak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and mr.sourav chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. we have carefully perused the memorandum of association of the company. we find, in clause 9 of the other objects the company was permitted to carry on registrar of business of advertisement. on companies the must functioning be vigilant of to the company take steps the against the erring companies. once the company themselves applied under section 560 of the companies act, 1956, unless there was specific reason to reject such prayer, in our view, the learned single judge should have allowed the same, particularly when restoration would not ipso facto absolve them from the liability of non-compliance of any of the statutory provisions or liability attracting penal provisions as contemplated in the said act of 1956. from the order of the registrar also it is not clear whether the compliance of formalities under the said provision was fully complied with before the name was struck off in 2008. considering aside the judgment the and above, order we allow impugned this herein appeal and and set restore the company ventron finco.private limited directing restoration of the company’s name venton finco.private limited in the record of the registrar of companies, west bengal. we make it clear, this would not absolve the company or its directors and/or principal officer from liabilities, if any, or offences, if any, committed by them under the provisions of law including the said act of 1956. the registrar of companies would be entitled to cost of this appeal assessed at rs.5001/- to be paid within two weeks from date. ( banerjee, j.) (dr. mrinal kanti chaudhuri, j.)
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET APO No.460 of 2012 with CP No.593 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction VENTRON FINCo.PVT.LTD.Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR.

MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI Date :

26. h February, 2013.

Mr.Debangshu Basak, Mr.Soumik Ghosh for the appellant.

Mr.Sourav Chakraborty, Mr.Anish Dutta for the respondent.

The Court : The name of the company was struck off in 2008.

Upon coming to know, the company made an application for restoration after about three yeaRs.The company contended before the learned Single Judge, they were carrying on advertising business.

Learned Judge did not find any such business in the Memorandum of Association as one of its principle object.

Learned Judge was also doubtful about the functioning of the company.

His Lordship dismissed the application.

Hence this apeal.

We have heard Mr.Debangshu Basak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Sourav Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

We have carefully perused the Memorandum of Association of the company.

We find, in Clause 9 of the other objects the company was permitted to carry on Registrar of business of advertisement.

On Companies the must functioning be vigilant of to the company take steps the against the erring companies.

Once the company themselves applied under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, unless there was specific reason to reject such prayer, in our view, the learned Single Judge should have allowed the same, particularly when restoration would not ipso facto absolve them from the liability of non-compliance of any of the statutory provisions or liability attracting penal provisions as contemplated in the said Act of 1956.

From the order of the Registrar also it is not clear whether the compliance of formalities under the said provision was fully complied with before the name was struck off in 2008.

Considering aside the judgment the and above, order we allow impugned this herein appeal and and set restore the company Ventron FinCo.Private Limited directing restoration of the company’s name Venton FinCo.Private Limited in the record of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal.

We make it clear, this would not absolve the company or its Directors and/or principal officer from liabilities, if any, or offences, if any, committed by them under the provisions of law including the said Act of 1956.

The Registrar of Companies would be entitled to cost of this appeal assessed at Rs.5001/- to be paid within two weeks from date.

( BANERJEE, J.) (DR.

MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI, J.)