2017 (9) TMI 1664 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking appeal for Restoration of the Name of the Company in the Register of Companies - Whether Registrar of Companies (ROC) has struck off the name of the Company on 28.07.2017 without any prior notice? - Held that - ROC vide Notice No. ROC dated 21.07.2017 has observed that ROC issued notices in form No. STK-I on various dates and notice in Form STK-5 on 05.05.2017 and published in Official Gazette on 27.05.2017 and 03.06.2017. Further stated that notice is hereby published that pursuant to Section 248 (5) of Companies Act, 2013 from 21.07.2017 the list of companies names struck off are made available and the said companies are dissolved. The list of name includes the petitioner s company name i.e MJM Industries Private Limited. In spite of the above facts available on record, the Petitioner Company has casually submitted that the ROC has struck off the name of the company on 28.07.2017 without any prior notice -From the records made available by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, no record in support of their prayer is submitted by the Learned Counsel for making an appeal to NCLT, when the company itself is dissolved. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal for Restoration of Company Name in Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. The petition was filed by MJM Industries Private Limited seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company had faced operational issues and failed to file ROC Annual filings within the stipulated time, leading to its name being struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) without prior notice.

2. MJM Industries Private Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had its registered office in Hyderabad with an authorized share capital of Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The company's main objects included manufacturing, assembling, trading, and wholesaling various goods, including iron boxes using Liquefied Petroleum Gas as fuel.

3. The ROC had issued notices in various forms, including STK-I and STK-5, on different dates, and published notifications in the Official Gazette regarding the striking off of company names under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite these notices and publications, the Petitioner Company claimed that its name was struck off without prior notice, which the Bench viewed seriously.

4. The Petitioner failed to provide any supporting records for their appeal to the NCLT, especially considering the company was already dissolved. The Bench, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had no choice but to reject the appeal filed by the Petitioner Company through CA 95/252/HDB/2017.

5. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded in the matter. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the appeal and the serious nature of the claims made by the Petitioner regarding the striking off of the company's name without prior notice.