2020 (6) TMI 776 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of name of the companyin the Register of Companies as maintained by the Registrar of Companies - section 252 of Companies Act - time limitation - HELD THAT - Due to non-filling of the Balance Sheet since 31.03.1999 because of such reason the ROC, Gwalior struck off the name of the company - the present company appeal is filed (on 20.11.20) after the expiry of the period prescribed for availing benefits of delay condonation scheme, 2018 which was available only up to 01.05.2018 to apply to the Central Government for removal of disqualification imposed under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 and further for reactivation of its Director's DIN. Hence, the Central Government, Ministry of Corporate Affair may consider such prayer as per its norms for re-activation of DIN of the directors of the appellant company in the light of this Tribunal's order. The company is further expected to clear its Income Tax dues, if any, and to obtain a No-Objection Certificate from the Income Tax Department. It would not be just and equitable to revive the name of the company, M/s. Rahul Steel Forging Pvt. Ltd. in the statutory register as being maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Restoration of company's name in the Register of Companies after being struck off by the Registrar of Companies.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought restoration of the company's name, M/s. Rahul Steel Forging Private Limited, in the Register of Companies after it was struck off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-filing of annual returns and balance sheets since 1999.
2. The appellant, a creditor of the company, requested various reliefs, including directing the Registrar to restore the company's name, change its status from strike off to active, and make provisions to place the company and all involved parties in the same position as before the strike off.
3. The appellant argued that the company was dormant since 1999, but the strike off was prejudicial to their interests as a creditor with outstanding dues of ?6,45,000, acknowledged by the company through various letters.
4. The Registrar justified the strike off citing non-compliance with mandatory filing requirements under the Companies Act, 2013, and stated that the appeal could be considered subject to filing overdue balance sheets and other returns with additional fees.
5. The appellant filed the appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act as a creditor, eligible to seek restoration of the company's name, which was struck off in 2008, and the appeal was within the limitation period.
6. The Tribunal found that it would not be just to revive the company's name, considering the circumstances, lack of existence or business activity, and inconsistencies in the appellant's claims of being a creditor for consultancy services and construction work.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, concluding that there were doubts regarding the appellant's creditor status, the intention behind seeking restoration, and the lack of evidence supporting the claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including the grounds for the appeal, arguments presented by the parties, justifications for the strike off, and the Tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the appeal.