9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 292 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of the Company on the register maintained by the Registrar of the Companies - section 252 (3) of the Compaq Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - It is admitted by the applicant that the company did not file its annual returns and financial statement for the year 2017-18 2018-19 - The applicant produced on record the audited annual financial statements for the year 2017-18 to 2018-19 to show that the company was carrying on business. On perusal of the documents placed on record, it is found that the Company was in the operation and have fixed assets liabilities - Moreover, admittedly upon service of notice under section 248 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013, the applicant had filed representation pointing out that the company is going concern, but, annual return could not be filed due to inadvertence. In our considered opinion ROC, Gujrat, ought to have considered that observation. Be as that as it may from material on record, we find that the company carries the business, Hence, its name has to be restored in the register of companies maintained by ROC. The Registrar of Companies, Ahmedabad, the respondent herein, is ordered to restore the name of company in Register of Companies as if the name of the Company has not been struck off from such Register.
Issues: Restoration of company name on the register maintained by ROC after default in statutory compliances.
Analysis: 1. The application was filed under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, for restoration of the company's name on the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) as it was struck off due to non-compliance with filing financial statements and annual returns for the years ending on 31.03.2017 and 31.03.2018. 2. The applicant admitted the company's failure to file annual returns and financial statements for the relevant years. 3. The applicant submitted audited financial statements for the years in question to demonstrate that the company was operational during that period. 4. The ROC, Ahmedabad, in its representation, requested the applicant to file the balance sheet for the default years by paying late fees and potential costs. 5. Upon reviewing the documents, it was established that the company was operational and had fixed assets and liabilities. 6. Despite the non-filing of annual returns, the company was carrying on business, as confirmed in a representation filed by the applicant in response to a notice under section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found that the company's business activities warranted restoration of its name on the register maintained by the ROC. 7. The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name on the register, directed the filing of pending statutory documents with prescribed fees within 45 days, imposed a cost for revival, and instructed the company's representative to ensure compliance. 8. The restoration of the company's name was subject to the payment of a specified cost and compliance with the Tribunal's directions. The ROC was directed to publish the order in the official Gazette after receiving the certified copy. 9. The order was specific to the violations leading to the name being struck off and did not preclude the ROC from taking further legal actions for any other violations committed by the company. This detailed analysis covers the issues and the Tribunal's decision regarding the restoration of the company's name on the register maintained by the ROC after default in statutory compliances.
|
