9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 18 - Tri - Companies LawSeeking restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The provisions pertaining to restoration name of the Company are provided in the Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which, inter alia, includes that if a company is carrying out its business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored, this Tribunal can order the RoC to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies. It would be just and equitable to order restoration of the name of the Company in the register of RoC to enable the Appellant Company to carry on business as per its objects - the Appeal is allowed subject to payment of costs of ₹ 50,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, the proof of which will be furnished by the Appellant to the Registry of this Tribunal within 07 days. The Registrar of this Tribunal shall maintain the information about such deposits in a separate E-register.
Issues:
- Restoration of Company Name in Register maintained by RoC - Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Restoration - Payment of Costs for Restoration - Freezing of Bank Account(s) of Appellant Company Analysis: 1. Restoration of Company Name in Register maintained by RoC: The appeal was filed by the ex-director of a company seeking restoration of the company's name in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was struck off the register due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically the failure to file Financial Statements & Annual Returns. The appellant provided evidence of assets purchased for business development, emphasizing the necessity of restoration. The RoC did not object to the restoration, and the Tribunal referred to a relevant judgment highlighting the importance of land ownership for business purposes. Ultimately, the Tribunal found it just and equitable to order the restoration to enable the company to continue its operations. 2. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Restoration: The Tribunal ordered the restoration subject to the appellant fulfilling certain conditions. These conditions included the payment of costs amounting to ?50,000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within seven days. Additionally, the company was required to file all outstanding documents for the defaulting years, complete all formalities, and pay any late fees or charges leviable for the late filing of statutory returns. Once these requirements were met, the company's name would be restored in the RoC register as if it had never been struck off. 3. Payment of Costs for Restoration: As part of the restoration process, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay a sum of ?50,000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within seven days. The proof of payment was to be submitted to the Tribunal's registry. This payment was deemed necessary for the restoration of the company's name in the RoC register. 4. Freezing of Bank Account(s) of Appellant Company: The Tribunal also addressed the issue of freezing the bank account(s) of the appellant company. It directed that if any bank accounts were frozen, they should be immediately unfrozen to allow the company to resume its business operations. The respondent was instructed to comply with this order within one week of the appellant fulfilling all necessary compliances for restoration. Overall, the appeal was allowed, and the order was made available to the concerned parties for compliance.
|
