2018 (1) TMI 1441 - Tri - Companies Law

Restoration of the name of the petitioner company on the Register of Companies maintained by the office of the ROC, NCT of Delhi and Haryana - section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that - The reason for striking off the name of the petitioner company is non-filing of Balance Sheet and Annual Returns since 1999 which resulted in the belief that the petitioner was not carrying on any business. Notice for striking off was published in the Official Gazette on 23.6.2007. Further the petitioner company has failed to produce any statutory return as proof of it being in operation and carrying on business. The name of the petitioner company has been struck off by following the procedure laid down by Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. One of the following three conditions are required to be satisfied before exercising jurisdiction to restore company to its original name on the register of the ROC namely A) that the company at the time of striking off of its name was carrying on business, or B) it was in operation, or C) otherwise that it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register. When we apply the aforesaid statutory parameters to the facts of the present case the petitioner has not been able to show that on 23,06.2007 when it was struck off it was in fact carrying on business or it was in operation, On its own showing the petitioner filed his last annual returns in the year 1999. The petitioner has not been able to show any evidence to prove that it had filed even income tax returns from 2005 till 2014 - section 560(6) would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as no credible evidence has been shown to prove that the petitioner company was carrying on its business or was in operation on the date of striking off, or that it would be just that the name of the company be restored on the register of ROC. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for restoration of company name under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Allegations of default in statutory compliances leading to striking off the company's name.
3. Petitioner's claim of continuous business operation and subsequent cessation.
4. Examination of evidence regarding business operation and statutory compliance.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to restore company name based on statutory requirements.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application for restoration of a company's name under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner sought the restoration of the company's name on the Register of Companies maintained by the office of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana.

2. The Registrar of Companies (ROC) had struck off the company's name due to default in statutory compliances. The petitioner argued that the company had been active since its inception, but faced challenges leading to a period of abeyance in business operations, resulting in non-compliance with filing requirements.

3. The petitioner claimed to have been running a cinema hall business until 2002, after which market conditions and renovations led to a cessation of operations. The petitioner, unaware of the technicalities, failed to file necessary documents due to staffing issues. The application sought restoration of the company's name and related relief.

4. The ROC's reply indicated non-filing of statutory documents since 1999, leading to the belief that the company was not in operation. The ROC followed the procedure under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for striking off the company's name based on non-compliance.

5. The Tribunal examined the statutory provisions for restoration and the conditions required to be satisfied. Despite the petitioner's submissions, the lack of credible evidence showing business operation or compliance with filing requirements led to the dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal found no basis to restore the company's name based on the presented facts.

This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the grounds for the application, allegations of default, the petitioner's claims, examination of evidence, and the Tribunal's decision based on statutory requirements.