9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 665 - AT - Companies LawRestoration of the name of the Company - going concern - default in statutory compliance and failure to file return since 31.03.2013. - It submitted that, the Appellants Company is being continuously operative and the directors were administrating the functions of the business right since incorporation. - HELD THAT - going through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that the Financial Statements for the year 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and Income Tax Return of the Appellant Company shows that the Appellant Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the conditions.
Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), NCT of Delhi and Haryana. Detailed Analysis: The Appellant Company, a private limited Company involved in power generation, filed an Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissing the appeal for restoration of its name in the Register maintained by the RoC. The Appellant Company was struck off by the RoC due to default in statutory compliance and failure to file returns since 31.03.2013. The Appellant Company contended that it had substantial assets, including long-term borrowings, fixed assets, cash equivalents, and had been continuously operative with no lag in operations. The Appellant also had new projects in the pipeline, demonstrating ongoing business activities. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on grounds of factual and legal errors, citing previous judgments where restoration was directed by the Tribunal. The Respondent RoC argued that based on available records, the Appellant Company had not filed financial statements beyond 31.03.2012, leading to the belief that the company was not operational. The RoC followed due process under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, before striking off the company's name. The Respondent contended that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of business operations or just grounds for revival. The Income Tax Department, another Respondent, mentioned outstanding tax demands but had no objection to the company's restoration. After hearing both parties and reviewing the financial statements and tax records, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Appellant Company possessed substantial movable and immovable assets, indicating ongoing business operations. The Tribunal held that the orders of the NCLT and RoC were unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the name of the Appellant Company was ordered to be restored in the Register of Companies, subject to specified compliances. The Appellant was directed to pay costs, file annual returns and balance sheets, and comply with other statutory requirements. The RoC retained the authority to take punitive measures for non-compliance even after restoration. The Appeal was allowed, and the judgment was to be uploaded on the Tribunal's website and sent to the NCLT promptly.
|
