Ex parte Pillay & Sons Ltd

• Judge: Roper J
• Judgment Date: 23 November 1950
• Citation: 1951 (1) SA 229 (T)
• Hearing Date: 23 November 1950
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Roper, J.:

The applicant in this matter alleges that he is the sole B surviving director of a company called v S. Pillay & Sons Ltd. He alleges that this company did business as the owner and lessor of immovable property until 1948, but that as a result of the fact that it had not rendered the returns and forms required to be lodged under the Companies Act its name was struck off the register on the 10th C September, 1948, and was dissolved by publication of a notice in the Government Gazette of the 17th September, 1948. The petitioner alleges that certain immovable property is still registered in the name of the company and that the company's name should therefore not have been removed from the register. He goes on to say that a great hardship will D be suffered by the company if the name of the company is not re-instated and that it is just and equitable that it should be restored to the register in order that it may again resume and conduct this business, and that nobody can be prejudiced if it is re-instated. The petitioner further states that on re-instatement all arrear taxes due to E the Government will be paid and all outstanding forms will be lodged with the Registrar of Companies. He therefore applies for an order restoring the name of the company to the register of companies and declaring himself to be a director of the company.

F Sec. 199 of the Companies Act contains provisions under which the Registrar is entitled to have a company removed from the register if it appears, after enquiries which are laid down in the section, that the company is not carrying on business or is not in operation. Sub-sec. (7) of sec. 199 reads as follows:

' If a company or any member or creditor thereof feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register the Court, on the G application of the company, or member or creditor may, if satisfied that the company was at the time of the striking off carrying on business or was in operation, or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register, and thereupon the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off; and the Court may, by the order, give such directions and make such H provision as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position, as nearly as may be, as if the company had not been struck off.'

Having in...