2020 (1) TMI 279 - AT - Companies Law

Restoration of name of respondent on the register of companies maintained by the office of the ROC - allegation that the appellant has failed to prove that he is a creditor of the company - Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The Respondent No.3 and 4 has given an affidavit and indemnity in the year 2005, while applying for striking off the name of the company, that the Respondent No.2 company has no assets and liabilities and also undertook to pay any liability arising later on - We cannot say that it is outstanding as on 2005 or it has been paid to somebody who was not entitled to it because there are no records since 1998. Since the company has no assets and the company has not filed any return from 1998 onwards, therefore, it would be futile to restore the name of the company. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of Company Petition seeking restoration of company name on the register of companies
- Claim of the appellant as a creditor of the company
- Allegations of fabricated application for striking off the company
- Dispute over the ownership of the loan amount and joint family property

Analysis:

The appellant, along with four others, filed a Company Petition seeking restoration of the name of a company on the register of companies, claiming to be creditors. The NCLT dismissed the petition for failure to prove creditor status. The appellant, aggrieved by the order, filed an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Respondents did not appear, and Respondent No.3 and 4 did not file a reply but argued the matter.

The appellant claimed to be a creditor of the company, citing a loan amount from his grandfather reflected in the company's balance sheet. Allegations were made against Respondent No.3 and 4 for filing a fabricated application for striking off the company and denying liabilities. The appellant argued that the loan amount was part of joint family property, supported by legal proceedings and RTI information confirming the striking off of the company.

Respondent No.3 and 4 argued that the loan amount was bequeathed to Mr. Anil Kapur and paid by the company. They disputed the joint family corpus and association of the appellant with the company, asserting that the company's name was struck off in 2007.

The Tribunal noted the striking off of the company's name in 2007 and the affidavits and indemnity bonds filed by Respondent No.3 and 4 in 2005. As the company had no assets or liabilities since 1998, restoration was deemed futile. However, the appellant was advised to pursue remedies against the directors who provided the affidavits and indemnity bonds.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, acknowledging the appellant's creditor status but finding restoration of the company name impractical due to lack of assets and liabilities. The appellant was directed to seek recourse against the directors for potential relief.