9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1406 - AT - Companies LawROC power to remove the name of a company from the Register of the Companies - Held that - Tribunal has failed to decide as to what is the specific violation committed by the company for removing its name from the Register in terms of Section 248 of the Companies Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no other option but to set aside the order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the case taking into consideration of the provisions of Section 248 and sub-section (3) of Section 252 of the Companies Act as also all the relevant evidence filed by the appellant in its support.
Issues:
1. Rejection of application under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench. 2. Lack of specific reason for considering the company as a shell company. 3. Failure to provide a hearing to the company before taking action under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. 4. Registrar of Companies' non-appearance and undisputed facts. 5. Interpretation and application of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. 6. Failure of the Tribunal to consider relevant evidence and provisions of the Companies Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the application under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The Tribunal based its decision on the company's non-compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, including failure to file annual returns and balance sheets, leading to the company being struck off the Register of Companies by the Registrar of Companies. 2. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not provide specific reasons for labeling the company as a shell company. The appellant contended that the company, 'Educare Network Consultant Pvt. Ltd.,' was still operational and carrying on business, which the Registrar of Companies did not object to in their affidavit. The lack of a fair hearing before the action was taken under Section 248(5) was also highlighted. 3. Despite the notice, the Registrar of Companies, Puducherry, did not appear, and the undisputed facts were not contested. The Tribunal's failure to consider the application for restoration under Section 252(3) and the company's ongoing operations were significant points raised by the appellant. 4. The Tribunal's decision was analyzed concerning Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, which outlines the grounds for removal of a company's name from the register. The section mandates issuing a notice to the company and directors before striking off the name, ensuring due process is followed. 5. The Tribunal's oversight in not discussing the company's response to the notice and its operational status was noted. The appellant's argument that all relevant facts were not considered by the Tribunal led to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for reconsideration. 6. The judgment concluded by directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the case considering all relevant evidence, provisions of Sections 248 and 252 of the Companies Act, and evidence submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal was instructed to review the case within three months, emphasizing a comprehensive assessment of all documents and evidence provided.
|
