March 24, 2011
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/customer/www/rna-cs.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/vision_wp/template_inc/loop-index.php on line 217
1. Restoration of the name of Company in case of omission under Section 560(3) by the Registrar of Companies. SITARAM SINGH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA  Decided on - 11-12-2009 Under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Register of Companies cannot strike out the name of the Company unless the publication of notice in terms of sub section (3) is done. The pre-condition for taking action under sub section (5) is, inter-alia, the expiry of time mentioned in the notice referred to in sub section (3). Even if there is a serious omission on the part of the Company in not filing its annual returns, if the mandatory requirement under Section 560(3) is not complied with, there can be no occasion for the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name. Consequently, the same is liable to be restored by the Registrar of Companies. 2. Professional misconduct on the part of the auditor not within the purview the company Law Board S. KUNJITHAMALA Vs. HVAC SYSTEMS P. LTD  Decided on - 03.02.2010 In a petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board by an interim order appointed an auditor to look into the misappropriation of funds of the company and mismanagement of the company. The petitioner on whose application such an interim order was passed, alleging professional misconduct, sought a direction for withdrawing of the auditor and appointment of an independent auditor. The Company Law Board rejected this prayer on the ground that Professional misconduct was not a matter which could be normally examined by the company Law Board nor could the court examine any such sundry matters. The matter of professional misconduct was to be examined by the disciplinary body. In the appeal filed under Section 10F, the decision of the Company Law Board was affirmed. 3. Registrar of Companies to delete entry of satisfaction of charge, if the same is done falsely KARNATAKA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs MURUDESWAR FOODS & EXPORTS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS Decided on- 24.02.2010 With reference to 125 and 141 of the Companies Act, 1956, where there was no material to show that the charge is satisfied and yet the records of the Registrar of Companies showed that the loans have been satisfied on the basis of the false statement of affairs filed by the directors of the company in liquidation, the Registrar of the Companies was directed to hold enquiry and delete the entry of satisfaction in the Register of charges. 4. Status of a Member in respect of a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. MADRAS CRICKET CLUB Vs. M. SUBBIAH  Decided On 03-02-2010 A member of the petitioner Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed a complaint against the company and others under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the complaint. The respondent was neither a subscriber to the memorandum of the company who had agreed to become a member thereof nor a person who had agreed in writing to become a member of the company as envisaged under section 41 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner-company was registered under section 25 of the Act and had no equity share capital holding whereof would have constituted the respondent a shareholder. The complaint was not maintainable under Section 621 of the Act and was to be quashed.