9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 317 - AT - Companies LawRestoration of the name of the Applicant in the Register of Companies maintained by Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana - Held that - We have thus tried to call for the records from concerned Government Office but could not get the documents regarding compliance under Section 560(1) (2) & (3) of the Old Act. We did not let ourselves to be detained for the purpose as we find that if the documents had been available, it would have been possible for us to see if the Appellants could be said to be negligent. When the same are not available and the consideration under Section 560(6) of the Old Act is relevant for us, basically three parameters remain to be considered if the restoration of name of the Company is to be done. It is clear from the above sub-section 6 of Section 560 that the Company or Member or Creditor, who feels aggrieved, needs to satisfy the Tribunal by showing that I. The Company was at the time of striking off carrying on business, or, II. the Company at the time of striking off was in operation; or, III. Otherwise, that it is just that the company be restored to the Register. The Appellants want that the pleadings in the petition filed in NCLT with regard to the claims being made that the Company was in operation when it was struck off and that there exist just reasons to restore the name of the Company. We do not have the benefit of observations of the learned NCLT with regard to various documents which have now been filed in appeal as they were not before learned NCLT when the impugned order was passed. It would be appropriate that the matter is remitted back to the learned NCLT for re-hearing. Appeal is allowed - The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The original Petition is restored to file of National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi - The matter is remitted back to the learned NCLT for re-hearing.
Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. 2. Compliance with statutory requirements and filing of documents. 3. Proof of the company's operational status at the time of striking off. 4. Justification for restoring the company's name. Detailed Analysis: Restoration of the Company's Name: The Appellant No. 1, a company, filed an application under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), NCT of Delhi & Haryana. The company's name was struck off by the ROC on 31st May 2007, as notified in the Gazette dated 23rd June 2007. The company argued that it had been operational since its incorporation in 1956 and had been regularly complying with statutory requirements until 2002 when its operations were affected due to market changes. Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The ROC contended that the company had last filed its balance sheet on 31st March 1999 and had not submitted statutory documents, including Annual Returns and Balance Sheets, since then. This non-compliance led to the belief that the company was not operational, resulting in its name being struck off. The company, however, claimed that it was unable to file documents due to being short-staffed and lacking professional help. Proof of the Company's Operational Status: The NCLT found that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to prove its operational status at the time of striking off. The company failed to produce statutory documents or Income Tax Returns for the years 2005 to 2014. The NCLT concluded that the company was not operational since 2002 and had not filed necessary documents, leading to the ROC's decision to strike off its name. Justification for Restoring the Company's Name: The appellants argued that the company continued to be in operation and possessed valuable immovable property worth approximately ?140 Crores. They provided additional documents, including minutes of Annual General Meetings, audited Financial Statements, and evidence of property tax payments, to support their claim. The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to submit these additional documents to the NCLT for consideration. Judgment and Order: The NCLAT remitted the matter back to the NCLT for re-hearing, allowing the appellants to amend their petition to include pleadings regarding the company's operational status and just reasons for restoring its name. The NCLT was directed to give the appellants an opportunity to file additional documents and provide a fresh hearing to both parties. The original petition was restored to the file of the NCLT, and parties were instructed to appear before the NCLT on 8th January 2019.
|
