9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1091 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of the Company in the Register of Companies - HELD THAT - This Tribunal is of the view that the Company was in existence and it is a going concern and name of Company to be restored in the Register of Companies as maintained by ROC. By exercising the powers conferred on this Tribunal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 87-A of NCLT (Amendment) rules 2017, R/w NCLT Rules, 2016, the Company application bearing CA No. 79/252/HDB/2019 is disposed of with the direction to restore the original status of the Company as if the name of the company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies and take all consequential actions like change of company's status from 'strike off' to Active (for e-filing), to restore and activate the DINS, if applicable, to intimate the bankers about restoration of the name of the company so as to defreeze its accounts.
Issues:
- Restoration of company name in Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Company Details: The Applicant, a shareholder of the Company, sought restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company, M/S BRAN ETECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with specific details regarding its authorized share capital, main business objectives, and registered office location. 2. Allegations and Respondent's Denial: The Applicant alleged non-compliance with filing financial statements and annual returns, attributing the lapse to the misuse of the Applicant's digital signature by previous directors. The Respondent, Registrar of Companies Hyderabad, acknowledged the strike-off notice issued to the Company due to non-filing of accounts. The Respondent expressed no objection to restoring the Company's name, subject to specified conditions. 3. Legal Provisions and Tribunal's Decision: Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was invoked, allowing restoration if the Company was in operation at the time of strike-off. The Tribunal considered the Company's assets, stock holdings, and operational status, concluding that restoration was warranted. The Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 252 and NCLT Rules, directing the Registrar to restore the Company's name and ordering compliance with statutory filings within 30 days. 4. Directions and Compliance: The Tribunal's order included specific directives for the Registrar to restore the Company's status, for the Company to file pending documents promptly, and for the Applicant to ensure compliance. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed for revival, with instructions for online payment and submission of necessary documents to the Registrar. 5. Final Considerations and Limitations: The order emphasized that restoration was limited to the specific violations leading to strike-off and would not preclude further actions by the Registrar for any other offenses. The Applicant was granted a timeframe for delivering a certified copy of the order to the Registrar, ensuring adherence to the Tribunal's directives for restoration and compliance. This comprehensive analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including the Company's background, allegations, legal provisions, Tribunal's decision, specific directives, compliance requirements, and final considerations.
|
