2020 (10) TMI 1178 - Tri - Companies Law

Restoration of name of the Company in the Register of Companies - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The Appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore it could not be termed as a defunct company as per section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, which vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company, whose name has been struck off, and such Company is able to demonstrate that it is just to do so, can restore the name of the Company, in the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders, including the Appellant itself, who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in the register maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserve to be restored. Appeal allowed.

Issues:
- Appeal against striking off the name of the company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013
- Non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns from 2014-15 to 2017-18
- Evidence presented by the Appellant to prove business operation during the striking off period
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to restore the name of the company under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the striking off of the company's name under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company with the Registrar of Companies and had its registered office in Delhi. The Respondent struck off the company's name due to non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns from 2014-15 to 2017-18.

2. The Appellant contended that the company was operational during the striking off period and provided evidence to support this claim. The evidence included Audited Financial Statements, Bank Statements, Income Tax Returns, and a reply to the notice from the ROC requesting time to comply with statutory filings.

3. The ROC had issued a public notice for striking off the company's name, citing non-filing of financial documents. The ROC, in its reply, stated no objection to restoring the company's name in the Register of Companies if all pending statutory documents were filed with the requisite fees. The Income Tax Department did not file any reply.

4. The Tribunal, considering the grounds under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, found that the company was operational during the striking off period. As per Section 252(1), the Tribunal had the discretion to restore the company's name if it was just to do so. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the striking off as illegal and ordering the restoration of the company's name upon filing all outstanding documents and payment of necessary fees.

5. The restoration was subject to completing all formalities, including payment of late fees and charges, and a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The company's name would stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of Companies as if it had not been struck off. The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with orders to serve copies of the judgment to the parties involved.

← Previous Next →