MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON SMTI. NIRMALI KAUR V/S THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, ASSAM, MEGHALAYA

SHILLONG, India, March 10 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9:

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties in all the aforesaid three petitions.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. By the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner therein (same petitioner in all the petitions) seeks quashing of the proceeding as well as bailable warrants issued against her by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills, Shillong in CR Case No.1090 of 2016, CR Case No.1092 of 2016 and CR Case No.1093 of 2016.

4. The grievance of the petitioner in the aforesaid petitions is that though she is not connected with M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited and its Directors in any way, her name is shown in the complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, as C/o of M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited. He states that three complaints have been filed by the ROC are against the company-M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited and its Directors, as they failed to file their annual returns and balance sheet in terms of Sub-section 4 of Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. He submits that bailable warrant has been issued to the petitioner, in each of the three cases, only because, in the ROC record, the name of the petitioner is shown as C/o in the address of M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited.

5. Mr. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a landlord, had given her premises to M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited to conduct its business. Learned counsel relied on the agreement of lease entered into between the petitioner and M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited. He, thus, submits that the petitioner's name is shown as C/o in the complaint, only because she happens to be landlady of the premises which was given by her to M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x6AVhLzOqj7pWxAtJbo8b%2BJcN%2FLW%2BBsjO6i3JTzDWAzT&caseno=Crl.Petn./81/2025&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010017452025&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.