9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 38 - Tri - Companies LawRestoration of the name of the company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies - section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - grievance of the Petitioner Company is that the Respondent Registrar of Companies struck off the name of the Petitioner Company from the Register of Companies maintained by them without issuing notice in Form STK-5 - Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - The name of the company was struck off due to failure on the part of the company to file the statutory documents for Financial Year 2015-16 and 2016-17, and also for not carrying on the business. The Bench observes that the Petitioner Company has generated Revenue from operations, has Non-Current Assets, Current Assets Long-Term Borrowings in its Books of Accounts. Therefore, it would be just, equitable and in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to the company to rectify its defaults and continue the business. The Respondent Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Mumbai, is directed to restore the name of the Petitioner Company, to the Register of Companies subject to payment of a sum of ₹ 40,000/- as cost - Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in the Register of Companies. 2. Non-compliance leading to striking off the company's name. 3. Lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before striking off. 4. Financial statements and annual returns non-filing. 5. Company's operations and financial status evaluation. 6. Relief sought by the petitioner for restoration. Analysis: 1. The Company Petition sought restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. 2. The Petitioner company was struck off by the Respondent Registrar of Companies due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically failure to file Financial Statements and Annual Returns for 2015-16 and 2016-17, and not carrying on any business for two preceding years. 3. The Petitioner alleged lack of notice in Form STK-5 and absence of Public Notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before the striking off action was initiated. 4. The Petitioner admitted inadvertent non-filing of financial statements and provided Audited Accounts for the years 2015-16 to 2018-19, along with Income-Tax Returns acknowledgments for the relevant years. 5. The Bench evaluated the financial statements of the company, noting revenue, expenses, assets, and borrowings for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17, concluding that the company had operations and financial standing. 6. Considering the submissions, documents, and observations, the Bench found it just and equitable to allow the restoration prayer sought by the Petitioner company. 7. The Tribunal directed the Respondent Registrar to restore the company's name upon payment of specified costs and filing pending financial statements and Annual Returns within a stipulated period post-restoration, failing which the order would stand vacated. 8. Post-restoration, the Registrar was instructed to communicate with bank authorities for defreezing the company's accounts, ensuring operational continuity. This detailed analysis encapsulates the issues raised, the arguments presented, the evaluation conducted, and the relief granted in the Tribunal's judgment regarding the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies.
|
