2020 (12) TMI 426 - Tri - Companies Law

Restoration of name of the company in the Register of Companies - Section 252(1) 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. The restoration of the company s name to the Register of Registrar of Companies is ordered subject to its filing of all outstanding documents with proper filing fees along with additional fees required under law and completion of all formalities - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against striking off company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of striking off the company's name under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company provided details of its incorporation, authorized share capital, and main objects.
2. The Respondent struck off the company's name as it had not filed Annual Returns and Balance Sheets, indicating non-operation of the business. The company was struck off under Section 248 of the Act and relevant rules.
3. The Appellant presented evidence of being operational, including audited financial statements, bank statements, income tax returns, and relevant certificates/licenses. The ROC expressed no objection to restoring the company's name.
4. The grounds under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, require the company to be in operation or show justifiable cause for restoration. The Tribunal has discretion to restore a company's name if it deems it justifiable.
5. Considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal found the company to be operational and not defunct. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, declaring the striking off as illegal and ordering the restoration of the company's name upon fulfilling necessary requirements.
6. The restoration was subject to filing outstanding documents with fees, payment to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and completion of formalities. The company's name would be restored as if it had not been struck off under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
7. The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with directions to serve a copy of the order to the parties involved.