9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1021 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of Company in the Register of Companies - Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 confers on this Tribunal powers to order to restore the name of the Company in the Register maintained, provided such application is filed by (i) the Company or (ii) by any Member or (iii) any creditor or (iv) any workmen of the Company within 20 years from the date of publication of the notices under Section 248 (5) in Official Gazette about striking off of the name of such Company provided further that it is seen from the material on record that at the time of its name being struck off, the Company was doing its business or carrying its operation. In this case, the applicant produced on record the copy of Audited Annual Accounts for the year ended on March 31, 2015 to March 31, 2018. Perusal of the documents available on record Prima facie, suggest that the Company was not carrying out its business during the relevant time when its name was stuck off. It has not generated any revenues from its operations since the financial year ended on March 31, 2014. Available details do not suggest that during the said period it had anybody in its employment. It has not furnished its PAN or GST details or copy of any filed copy of Income Tax Returns. Annual Accounts do not suggest any business transaction. It has not provided any bank account details of the Company - the details mentioned, indicate that during the relevant time when the Company was Struck Off, it had not been a going concern and was not having any business operations. The same has also been admitted in the Application. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Striking off the name of the company under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. 2. Application under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 to revoke the order. 3. Evidence presented by the appellant to support the application. 4. Registrar of Companies' response and reasons for striking off the company's name. 5. Analysis of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. 6. Decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Cuttack Bench. Analysis: 1. The case involved the striking off of the company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 due to the company's failure to file statutory returns. The company, a Private Limited Company, was not filing its Balance Sheets and Annual Returns since the financial year ended in 2014-15. 2. The application under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was filed by the Managing Director-cum-Shareholder of the company, seeking to direct the Registrar of Companies, Odisha to revoke the order striking off the company's name. The application was based on the grounds of financial constraints preventing the filing of statutory returns. 3. The appellant presented evidence to support the application, including the Memorandum and Articles of Association, Incorporation Certificate, Company Master Data, Director's Data, and Audited Accounts for the years 2015 to 2018. However, the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that the company was carrying out its business operations during the relevant period. 4. The Registrar of Companies, Odisha, responded by stating that the company had not filed its statutory returns since 2015, leading to the decision to strike off the company's name. The Registrar highlighted that the company did not respond to the Show Cause Notice and was not considered a going concern during the default period. 5. Upon analyzing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the NCLT Cuttack Bench found that the company had not been operating or carrying out business activities during the period when its name was struck off. The lack of financial transactions, employment details, and other key information indicated that the company was not a going concern. The appellant's additional submissions were deemed insufficient to prove the company's active status during the default period. 6. Consequently, the NCLT Cuttack Bench dismissed the appeal under CP (Appeal) No. 134/CTB/2020, upholding the decision to strike off the company's name. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the company's business operations during the default period, leading to the dismissal of the application under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.
|
