9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 710 - Tri - Companies LawSeeking to restore the name of the Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The Counsel for Applicant further stated that the Company would file necessary-Financial Statements and Annual Returns soon after restoration of the name of the Company with the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad and prayed the Tribunal to revive this Company - Also, the latest Balance Sheet as on 31st March 2019 and Financial Statements for the year ending 31st March, 2019 of the Company. The Company is having Total Assets of ₹ 2,21,45,865/- and Total Liabilities of ₹ 1,82,76,560/-. After going through the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, this Tribunal is of the view that the Company was in existence and it is a going concern and name of the Company to be restored in the Register of Companies as maintained by RoC - Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in the Register of Companies. Analysis: The Company Application was filed seeking restoration of the name of the Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The Applicant contended that the Company failed to file its Annual Returns and Financial Statements for the Financial Years from 2011-12 to 2018-19 due to inadvertence. The Applicant provided various documents justifying that the Company was operational, including Audited Financial Statements, Income Tax Returns, and an Affidavit confirming compliance during demonetization. The Respondent, Registrar of Companies, denied most averments and highlighted the company's default in filing necessary documents, leading to its strike off under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Respondent raised concerns about the mismatch in paid-up capital, lack of business activity evidenced by zero revenue, and incomplete submission of Bank Statements and Income Tax Returns. Additionally, the Respondent froze the DIN of Directors due to disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Act. The Tribunal considered Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows restoration of a company's name if it was carrying on business or in operation at the time of strike off. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal found the Company to be a going concern with substantial assets and liabilities. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies. The Registrar of Companies was directed to take necessary actions, including changing the company's status, seeking clarifications on paid-up capital discrepancies, business purpose post-restoration, submission of pending financial documents, and compliance with observations made. The Company was instructed to pay a cost of ?2,00,000 for revival, file statutory documents, and ensure compliance within specified timelines. The restoration was subject to the Company's adherence to all directives and did not preclude further action for any other violations committed. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the restoration of the Company's name, subject to fulfilling specified conditions and compliance with regulatory requirements to rectify past defaults and resume operations lawfully.
|
