High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 08 KL CK 0066

Reliant Marketing and Services P. Ltd. vs Registrar of Companies and Others

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 August 2015 · Citation: (2015) 192 CompCas 188

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Vinod Chandran, J
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 17688 of 2015 (I)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 341 words

K. Vinod Chandran, J—The petitioner was before this court contending that the petitioner-company has been defunct for long, from 2010 onwards, and that under a scheme formulated by the Central Government, the petitioner had applied for winding up of the company after filing returns, which have been defaulted. By that time, the Registrar of Companies had filed a prosecution before the Economic Offences Court at Ernakulam, which is produced at exhibit PI, for reason of it having not filed the annual returns as prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956, as also for not convening of the annual general body meeting. The petitioner, in the above writ petition, sought for keeping in abeyance the prosecution proceedings till a decision is taken in the winding up application. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

2.

It was also brought to the notice of this court that the Registrar of Companies had declined the consideration under the Fast Track Exit Scheme, since the petitioner-company''s assets are said to have been encumbered and charged to the third respondent, which was recorded by the Registrar of Companies as provided under the Companies Act. The petitioner asserted that there is no such due to the third respondent and it is only for the reason of the company being defunct that the charge was not lifted, after clearing the dues to the third respondent.

3.

The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, clearly indicating that there is no amount outstanding in the name of the petitioner herein and that no recovery proceedings are also pending. The charge noticed in favour of the third respondent, in the above circumstances, shall stand lifted.

4.

In the above circumstances, it is only proper that the application under the Fast Track Exit Scheme be considered by the first respondent. Till such time, the proceedings at exhibit PI shall stand stayed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.