2021 (8) TMI 280 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies maintained by RoC - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - A careful examination of the various documents filed on behalf of the petitioner and the averments made on his behalf reveals that the company was not in operation prior to the date of striking off its name. Various documents pertaining to the period subsequent to the striking off the name of the company filed alongwith the petition cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of restoring the name of the company. On the other hand, 50% shareholder and the second and remaining Director of the company who is the third respondent in the CP categorically contended that the company was not in operation prior to the striking off its name. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of Company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
The petition was filed seeking restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies maintained by RoC, Delhi and Haryana. The company was struck off due to default in statutory compliances, specifically failure to file financial statements and annual returns since the financial year 2015-16. The petitioner, a director of the company, presented evidence of the company's activities, including maintaining its registered office, statutory records, executing agreements with employees, and holding a bank account. Financial statements for the years 2015-16 to 2018-19 showed revenue from operations. Notices were issued to RoC, Income Tax Department, and the second director of the company.

The Deputy Registrar of Companies stated that the company failed to file financial statements, leading to its name being struck off. The Income Tax Department reported on the filing of belated returns and no outstanding demands. The second director of the company contended that the company was not in operation before its name was struck off, highlighting that balance sheets were not prepared or considered in board meetings. During arguments, the petitioner's counsel asserted that the conditions of Section 252(3) were met for restoration. The RoC and Income Tax Department relied on their reports.

The Tribunal examined the submissions and documents. Section 252(3) of the Act was reviewed, emphasizing that restoration could occur if the company was carrying on business or in operation at the time of striking off. However, based on the evidence and contentions, it was found that the company was not in operation before its name was struck off. Therefore, the petition for restoration was dismissed as lacking merit, and the case was closed.