9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 868 - Tri - Companies LawSeeking restoration of the name of the struck off company in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - It is noted that company has failed to file returns since 2010 which prompted ROC, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to strike off the name of such company from its Register of Companies. However, from the records produced before us it is noted that Company has filed the Income Tax Returns for A. Y. 2010-11 to 2019-20, which indicate that the Company was in operation. It is further noted that company is neither a shell company nor it has engaged itself into any other illegal activities. It is considered just and proper to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies, from date of its striking off subject to payment of cost for non-compliance of rules relating to filing the Statutory Returns and Audited Financial Statements. The name is ordered to be restored - application allowed.
Issues: Restoration of struck off company in Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of Companies Act, 2013.
Analysis: 1. Background: The company was incorporated in 1996 but failed to file Annual Returns and Financial Statements since 2010, leading to its name being struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in 2017. 2. Appellant's Submission: The Appellant's counsel argued that the company was in operation and maintaining bank accounts, proving its active status. They claimed the company was not a shell company and had not engaged in any unauthorized transactions. 3. Decision Basis: Despite the absence of the ROC report, the Tribunal considered the Appellant's submissions and available records. The company had filed Income Tax Returns up to 2019-20, indicating its operational status. 4. Financial Standing: The balance sheet as of 31.03.2020 showed reserves, borrowings, inventories, receivables, and loans, demonstrating the company's financial activity and stability. 5. Judgment: Considering the facts, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies, subject to payment of costs for non-compliance with filing rules. The order included directions for filing pending documents, payment of costs, compliance monitoring, and publication in the official Gazette. 6. Compliance and Future Actions: The company was directed to fulfill specified requirements within set timelines, with the Registrar instructed to change the company's status to 'Active' and publish the order. The judgment clarified that it pertained only to past violations leading to striking off the name and did not prevent further legal actions for other offenses. 7. Conclusion: The Company Appeal was disposed of accordingly, with provision for issuing an urgent certified copy upon compliance. The judgment balanced restoration with accountability, emphasizing compliance with legal obligations to maintain transparency and corporate governance standards.
|
