9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1353 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyStriking of name of the company by the ROC - time limitation - petition has been filed after a gap of three years from the date of striking of name of the company - HELD THAT - The Company which was struck off on 30th June, 2017 is not engaged in any business right from the date of its incorporation and the Income tax Returns filed show losses as submitted by the Counsel for the Income tax Department. In the facts and circumstances recorded herein, there does not appear any grounds for ordering the restoration of the name of the company in the Register of the Companies. The Company appears to be a shell Company. The application is devoid of merits and filed to misuse the judicial process. Application dismissed.
Issues: Non-compliance with Companies Act, 2013 leading to striking off the company's name from the Register of Companies. Petition for restoration of the company's name filed after a significant delay. Lack of business activity and financial details of the company.
The judgment by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, involved a case where a company, SB Infosoft Ludhiana Private Limited, had its name struck off from the Register of Companies due to non-compliance with the Companies Act, 2013. The company was incorporated in 2006, but after the financial year 2011-2012, it failed to file annual returns, balance sheets, and income tax returns. The petition for restoration was filed three years after the company's name was struck off, indicating a significant delay. During the hearing, it was revealed that the company did not engage in any business activity and had minimal financial assets, including fixed deposits and a bank balance. The company was deemed a shell company, as it showed losses in the income tax returns without any business operations since incorporation. The lack of business activity and the financial status of the company were crucial factors considered by the tribunal in reaching its decision. The tribunal concluded that there were no grounds to order the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The application was deemed devoid of merits and an attempt to misuse the judicial process. Therefore, the tribunal rejected the application for restoration, based on the company's status as a shell company with no valid grounds for reinstatement.
|
