Meghalaya High Court
Crl.Petn.No.83/2025 Date Of Order: … vs The Registrar Of Companies on 9 March, 2026
2026:MLHC:163
Serial Nos.01-03
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn.No.81/2025 with
Crl.Petn.No.82/2025
Crl.Petn.No.83/2025 Date of Order: 09.03.2026
Smti. Nirmali Kaur .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Registrar of Companies, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura,
Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, Ministry
of Corporate Affairs, Government of India having its Office at
Morello Building, Ground Floor, Kachary Road, Shillong-793001,
Meghalaya. ..... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Thapa, Adv with
Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Debnath, Adv
i) Whether approved for reporting in No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: No
JUDGMENT:
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties in all the
aforesaid three petitions.
Page 1 of 5
2026:MLHC:163
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
Page 2 of 5
2026:MLHC:163
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.
6. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-ROC fairly concedes that the petitioner is not
connected with M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited nor
is she a Director of the said company. He also does not dispute
the fact, that the name of the petitioner is shown in the
Page 3 of 5
2026:MLHC:163
complaint, only because the premises on which the company is
operating from, belongs to the petitioner and since her name
alongwith the address has been recorded by the ROC in its
record, at the time of registration of the company.
7. It appears that the respondent-ROC has filed three
complaints as against M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India
Limited and its Directors, under Section 92(5) of the Compaines
Act, for non-filing of annual returns and balance sheet for
different years. It appears from the record that the premises
from which M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited was
operating belonged to the petitioner and there is an agreement of
lease entered into between the parties i.e., M/s Suntechno
Mutual Benefit India Limited and Nirmali Kaur (petitioner) for
the same. It appears that because M/s Suntechno Mutual
Benefit India Limited has given the name and address of the
petitioner that the petitioner has been impleaded in the
complaints filed by the ROC. Even the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-ROC does not dispute the fact, that the
petitioner is not in any way concerned with M/s Suntechno
Mutual Benefit India Limited.
Page 4 of 5
2026:MLHC:163
8. Considering the aforesaid, the proceeding, if any, only
against the petitioner whose name is reflected in the complaint
only by virtue of being the owner of the premises as C/o, from
which M/s Suntechno Mutual Benefit India Limited is/was
operating is quashed. The respondent-ROC is also directed to
delete the name of ‘Nirmali Kaur’ i.e., the petitioner, from the
record of the ROC considering the fact, that she is not concerned
with the said company.
9. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms.
10. The petitions are allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid
terms.
11. In view of the aforesaid order, interim relief granted by this
Court i.e., stay to all the three proceedings pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Khasi Hills,
Shillong stands vacated.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
09.03.2026
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2026.03.10 17:20:22 IST