Anil Krishnarao Jagtap vs ROC, Mumbai

The Court is convened through Video Conference.

This court convened through video conferencing today. Mr.HarshKesharia, Ld. Counsel/Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the

Appellant. Ms.Aditi Pathak, appeared on behalf of RBI.

This Company Petition is filed by Anil Krishnarao Jagtap (Appellant, Ex- Director)on behalf ofBatliwalla Development and Finance Company

Private Limited CIN:U45202MH1993PTC070696, under section 252 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 praying for restoration of the name of the

Company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai.

The Appellant submits that the company was incorporated on 08.02.1993under the Companies Act, 1956 as a private company limited by shares

with the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai.

The grievance of the Appellant is that the Respondent Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai struck off the name of the said Company

from the Register of Companies maintained by them by issuing notice in Form STK-1, STK-5 and STK-7 under section 248(4)(1) for removal of the

name of the Company from the Register of Companies under section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and rule 3 of the Companies (Removal of

Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file Financial

Statements and Annual Returns and failure to do business for two years.

The Appellant submits that the Company has been functioning since its incorporation. The Appellantfurther submits that the Company has failed to

file its Financial Statements and Annual Returns from Financial Year 2014-15 till Financial Year 2018-19 due to inadvertence.

The Appellant has enclosed the Audited Accounts for the Financial Year ended on 31.03.2015 till Financial Year ended on 31.03.2019.The

Appellant has also enclosed copies of the Acknowledgement of Income- Tax Returns filed with the Income-Tax Authorities for the Assessment Year

2019-20.

The Respondent has filed his report and reiterates that the name of the Company was struck off, as the company was not carrying on any business

or operation for a period of immediately preceding two years.

On hearing the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed that although Company removed object of acting as

NBFC from its object clause, as has also been confirmed by the representative of respondent ROC, however, the Ld. Counsel could not provide any

detail of resolution passed in this regard nor submitted any document. The ROC representative also could not provide any confirmation in this regard.

The company has done some financing business and it has not been able to provide this Bench its RBI Certificate of Registration as a finance

company. The Ld. Authorized Representative of RBI sought four weeks’ time for filing the reply, in this regard.

The Bench observes and recognise that since Fresh Start Scheme is going to close on 31.12.2020, hence, it would be just, equitable and in the

interest of justice to provide an opportunity to the Company to restore its name in the Register of Companies maintained by Registrar of Companies,

Mumbai, subject to the undertaking filed by the Director of the Company with ROC that they will not operate any Bank Account of the Company till

further orders of this Bench.

The Bench will be passing appropriate orders with respect to their financing activity, after hearing RBI Representative and also after reviewing

documents with respect to deletion of NBFC business clause from the Objects clause of the Company. Respondent ROC will submit a report with

respect to filing documents with respect to deletion of NBFC business clause from objects clause of the company.

Given the above facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the prayer sought by the Appellantfor restoration of the name of the

company,deserves to be allowed subject to the conditions above mentioned.

Accordingly,Company Petition bearing CP No.1140/252(1)/MB-IV/2020 filed by the Appellant, Anil Krishnarao Jagtap, representing Batliwalla

Development and Finance Company Private Limited, under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking restoration of the Company’s name

in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai is allowed on the following terms: -

(a) The Respondent Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, is directed to restore the name of the Company represented by the Appellant,viz.

Batliwalla Development and Finance Company Private Limited, to the Register of Companies subject to payment of a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees

Sixty Thousand only) as cost ‘to be paid online through Bharat Kosh in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

Mumbaiâ€â€˜ within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; subject to the undertaking filed by the Director of the Company that

they will not operate any Bank Account of the Company without specific orders from this Bench and

(b) Upon such restoration, the said Companyshall file all its pending financial statements and Annual Returns with all the applicable fees and late fees

with the Respondent Registrar of Companies within thirty days from the date on which the name of the Company is restored to the Register; failing

which, this order will stand vacated automatically.

Next date of hearing on 25.01.2020.