IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA COM PET No.5 of 2008 Hare Ram Singh Construction Private Limited At W. No.6, At+P.O.+P.S.+Dist. Supaul through Managing Director, namely, Shri Hare Ram Singh, son of late Sundar Lal Singh, resident of At +P.O. and P.S. Supaul, District Supaul. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Law and Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Registrar of Companies, Bihar & Jharkhand Mourya Lok Complex `A’ Block, Fourth Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001(Bihar). ……..Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Dudheshwar Singh, C.G.C. ---------- 08/ 16.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner as well as learned counsel for both the respondents. 2. The instant company petition has been filed by petitioner- Hare Ram Singh Construction Private Limited under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) for restoring the name of the Company in the register kept with the Registrar of Companies and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Act on 23.02.1990 vide Registration No.03-3886 of 1989-90 and since then it is dong construction work under various departments of the Government and had been regularly filing Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Annual Return in appropriate forms before the Registrar of Companies from 1989-90 to 2002-03, but due to some inadvertence Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Annual - 2 - Return of the Company could not be filed from 2003 to 2006 before the Registrar of Companies as required under sections 159 and 220 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Company is still functioning, but it could not comply the said formalities as Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Annual Return were to be prepared by its Chartered Accountant, namely, M/s P.R. Bhagat and Company, Kolkata, but the said Chartered Accountant did not act according to the directions of the Company whereas the Managing Director of the Company was under the impression that the said formalities were being completed by its said Chartered Accountant. It is also stated that only when a notice from the Registrar of Companies was received by the Company asking as to whether the Company was in operation, the Managing Director of the Company came to know about the said matter and considering its urgency he himself enquired from the said Chartered Accountant about the filing of the said documents, but the Chartered Accountant stated that he had not submitted Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Annual Return etc. since 2003-04. 5. In the said circumstances, the said Managing Director of the Company engaged another Chartered Accountant, namely, M/s Sanjay Kumar Jha of Patna, who prepared Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Annual Return of the Company for the said period and submitted the same before the Registrar of Companies, but the latter only accepted the challans for financial years 2003-2004 to - 3 - 2005-2006 and refused to accept the challans for the financial years 2006-07 onwards as the name of the Company was struck off from the register with effect from 21.08.2007 by order of the Registrar of Companies due to non-filing of the said papers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner-Company is not a defaulter Company as it is doing regular construction work and is being paid bills for the completed works by the departments of the Government.. He further submits that the petitioner has already deposited normal fee of three years i.e. Rs.1200.00 along with additional amount of Rs.10,800.00, which can be construed as cost for delay in performance of the legal formalities and if the petitioner-Company is not restored to its original position due to lapse on the part of its employees, it is bound to sustain irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 7. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the Company is bound to submit its Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Annual Return before the Registrar of Companies so that the fact relating to its financial position may be made public. It is also stated by learned counsel for the respondents that once an order has been passed by the Registrar of Companies, striking the name of the Company off the register on the aforesaid valid and genuine grounds, there is no provision for the Registrar of Companies to pass a different order and it is only for the Company Court to pass such orders under section 560(6) of the Act - 4 - if genuine reasons are shown, which are absolutely absent in the instant case. 8. Considering the pleadings and materials produced before this Court as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner-Company is still functioning and the documents produced by it shows that it has been receiving money after completion of works from the Government departments. It is also apparent that the formalities, which had to be complied under the provisions of section 159 and 220 of the Act, could not be complied due to none of the fault of the petitioner-Company, rather it was due to its reliance upon the Chartered Accountant, who failed in his duty. Hence, it transpires that sufficient grounds have been shown by the petitioner-Company. 9. In the said circumstances, let the name of the petitioner- Company be restored to the register kept with the Registrar of Companies and the Company and all the persons concerned with it be placed in the same position as they were before the order of striking the name of the Company off the register kept with the Registrar of Companies. 10. This company petition is, accordingly, allowed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )