9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 671 - Tri - Companies LawSeeking restoration of name of company in Registrar of Companies - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The Company has been active for the period of two years preceding the date of strike off and carrying on its business for the purpose of which it was incorporated. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(3) 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 there is a running business as on the date when the name was struck off and also keeping in consideration that it is just to do so can restore the name of the Company in the register. The Registrar of Companies, Chennai is ordered to restore the original status of the Petitioner Company viz. M/s. Ezhil Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd. as if the name of the Company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies with resultant and consequential actions like changing the status of Company from strike off to Active - application allowed.
Issues:
Petition under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking restoration of company's name after strike off. Analysis: The Petition was filed by a shareholder of the company aggrieved by the strike off order carried out by the Registrar of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company had not filed financial statements and annual returns, leading to the strike off. The petitioner argued that the lack of knowledge of the directors regarding statutory requirements caused the non-compliance. The company intended to continue its business operations, as evidenced by a proposal for a stone cutting business. The petitioner sought restoration of the company's name, stating it was active and carrying on its business purpose. The company had received quarrying rights and environmental clearances, indicating ongoing activities. The Registrar of Companies raised objections regarding the non-filing of financial statements and statutory returns for multiple financial years. The petitioner provided evidence of the company's activity, including a lease agreement, balance sheets, and quarrying rights. The Tribunal considered Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows restoration if the company demonstrates ongoing business at the time of strike off. The Tribunal found the company to be active for two years preceding the strike off and granted the restoration petition. The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name, changing its status from "strike off" to "Active." The company was directed to file pending annual returns, balance sheets, and other statutory compliances within 30 days of restoration. A cost of ?50,000 was imposed for revival, and the company was prohibited from alienating assets until all compliances were met. The order clarified that disqualified directors could not automatically be restored to directorship. The company was required to file an affidavit of compliance within two months and provide an undertaking regarding the use of accounts during demonetization. The order did not limit the Registrar's power to proceed against the company and its directors for late filings or non-compliances under the Companies Act, 2013. In conclusion, the petition seeking restoration of the company's name was allowed by the Tribunal, subject to various directions and conditions outlined in the order.
|
