9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 969 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of the Company in the Register of Companies, maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Kochi - delay in filing the Balance Sheets and Annual Returns - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - It appears from the records that vide order dated 28.07.2020, the appellant was directed to produce the Financial Statements of the Company for the Financial Year 2018-19 along with the GST Returns. The appellants produced the same on 23.09.2020. This Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and equitable to order restoration of the name of the Company in the Register of Companies - Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Appellant 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) and to intimate the bankers about restoration of the name of the company so as to defreeze its accounts - Application allowed.
Issues involved:
Restoration of company name in Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Detailed Analysis: 1. Appellant's Request for Restoration: The Appellant Company sought restoration of its name in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Kochi, as it was struck off due to non-compliance with filing requirements. The company was operational, earning revenue, and willing to fulfill its obligations. 2. Non-compliance and Strike Off Action: The Registrar of Companies (ROC) initiated strike off action against the company for failure to file financial statements and annual returns. The ROC followed due process, issuing notices and publishing notifications as required by the Companies Act, 2013. 3. Arguments and Undertakings: The Appellant argued that the strike off was unintentional, and they were unaware of the notice. They undertook to file pending returns if the company's name was restored. The ROC contended that the strike off was justified due to negligence and lack of due diligence by the directors. 4. Tribunal's Decision and Order: After reviewing the submissions and relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The ROC was directed to change the company's status to active, allow filing of returns, and defreeze accounts. The directors were instructed to file required documents and pay a fine. Compliance was mandated, and the power to proceed against the company for late filings was preserved. 5. Compliance and Further Directions: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance, directed the company to submit an undertaking regarding account usage, pay a specified cost, and ensure no disposal of assets. The ROC was instructed to publish the order in the official gazette upon compliance. 6. Conclusion: The Company Appeal was disposed of with the restoration of the company's name, subject to fulfilling specified conditions and ongoing compliance with statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 2013. This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the background, arguments presented, legal provisions applied, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
