9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 207 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of name of the company in the Register of companies - Section 252(1) (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The Appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore, it could not be termed as a defunct company as per Section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, which vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company, whose name has been struck off, and such Company is able to demonstrate that it is just to do so, can restore the name of the Company, in the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders, including the Appellant itself, who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in the register maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserve to be restored. The restoration of the Company's name to the Register of Registrar of Companies is ordered subject to its filing of all outstanding documents with proper filing fees along with additional fees required under law and completion of all formalities - appeal allowed.
Issues:
- Appeal against striking off the name of the company under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. - Company's claim of being in operation during the period preceding strike off. - Consideration of evidence presented by the appellant to demonstrate operational status. - Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Registrar of Companies. Analysis: The appeal was filed by M/s. AGBRO Foods & FMCG Limited against the order of striking off its name by the Registrar of Companies under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company contended that it was incorporated as a Private Limited Company and provided details of its authorized and paid-up share capital, along with its registered office address. The main objects of the company were outlined, emphasizing its business activities related to goods, merchandise, FMCG products, and other services. The Respondent had struck off the company's name due to non-filing of Annual Accounts and Returns for the Financial Years 2016-17 onwards, indicating possible non-operation of the business. However, the Appellant submitted various documents to prove its operational status during the relevant period. These documents included audited financial statements, lease deed, supply and installation agreements, bank statements, income tax returns, and GST registration certificate. The Registrar of Companies (ROC) did not object to the restoration of the company's name, subject to the filing of all pending statutory documents and late filing fees. The Income Tax Department did not file any reply in this matter. The Tribunal considered the grounds under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, which require the company to be in operation or demonstrate just reasons for restoration. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had provided sufficient evidence of being in operation, thus fulfilling the conditions for restoration under Section 252(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the striking off of the company's name as illegal and ordering its restoration in the Register of Registrar of Companies. The restoration was subject to fulfilling all necessary formalities, including filing outstanding documents, payment of fees, and a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Tribunal's decision aimed to protect the interests of stakeholders, including the Appellant, by reinstating the company's name as if it had not been struck off initially. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the order for restoration of the company's name was issued, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and formalities. The Tribunal directed the parties to be served with a copy of the order for implementation and further action.
|
