SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner has moved an application seeking to recall the dissolution order dated 14th July, 2009 passed by the respondent Registrar of Companies in terms of section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 and published the Gazette on of 5th September - 11th September, 2009. The contention of the petitioner is that she is Director and also the widow of the another Director who was managing the affairs of Company. The authorized share capital of the company was i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- divided in 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The Company had purchased agricultural land in the year 1996 in Village 5E Choti, Patwar Halka 4 ML, Tehsil and District Shri Ganganagar and the name of the company was entered in jamabandi. The State Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings and the land of the company was included in the notification dated 4th March, 2003 and 20th December, 2003. It is further staled that the company was filing its annual return as per Section 159 of the Act of 1956 up to the year 2005. The notification of acquisition was challenged before the High Court at Jodhpur by the Company and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 20.1.2014 in favour of the company. The State Government has preferred an appeal against the said order and the Division Bench has passed an order of status quo while staying the operation of the order of the Single Judge. As the founder Director and subscriber of the Company, Bhim Sain Garg expired after a prolong illness on 4th October, 2008, the petitioner states that she as widow and could not pay attention to the company affairs of the company and was first following up the acquisition proceedings and litigation relating to the property of the company before the High Court and the proceedings are still pending.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices under section 560(1)(2) and (3) were issued on the same date i.e. 14th July, 2009 and the notices under Section 560(5) has also been issued on 14th July, 2009 and therefore the procedure as provided under 560 was not followed for passing orders of the dissolution and striking off the name of the company from the Register. It is further submitted that the company had been formed with a pious purpose of construction of cancer hospital at District Shri Ganga Nagar, the father of late Shri Bhim Sain Garg had expired due to cancer and therefore the Director late Shri Bhim Sain Garg wanted to construct the Cancer Hospital in the name of his late father. Subsequently, Shri Bhim Sain Garg also expired and therefore, his wife i.e. petitioner wanted to fulfil her late husband's wishes and dreams by constructing the hospital. It is submitted that if the company is not revived and the order of dissolution is not set aside, the purpose would be defeated.
(3.) The Deputy Registrar Companies has filed reply and pointed out that the application for dissolution was moved by the Directors themselves on 13.1.2006 and therefore the process regarding section 560(1)&(2) were mere formalities, since the application had contained facts that the company was not in operation and had become defunct and also did not have any assets or liabilities on the said date. The Registrar issued notice under Section 560(3) of the Act of 1956 and directed the same to be published in terms thereof. The order was passed under 560(5) of the Act of 1956 on 13.1.2006. The date of 14th July, 2009 was only when entries made in the process of computerization. The original notice given in 2006 has been placed on record on 13th January, 2006 has already been placed on record. The entries are which have been placed by the petitioner are subsequent system generated emails and the mail ID of the Company and it can not be said that the respondent office had denovo started the process of striking off in 2009. It is also pointed out that the balance sheets for the period were not filed 2005 to 2009 till the date of stricking off the company's name and therefore the company cannot be said to be functioning. Submission of false declaration at the time of filing of application dated 6.1.2006 has also been raised; however, not seriously pressed. In view that acquisition proceedings had been initiated.;