2020 (12) TMI 1134 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of the name of the struck off company in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - It is noted that company has failed to file returns from 2010-11 to 2015-16 which prompted ROC, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to strike off the name of such company from its Register of Companies. Although, Financial Statements do not enable us to conclusive hold that the company is having operations/trading activities. From the perusal of the Financial Statements however, it could be said some activities exist. Further, the representative of the Applicant has categorically stated that intend to increase the volume of operations in future - Considering this, it is just and proper to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies maintained by ROC, from the date of its striking off subject to payment of suitable cost for noncompliance of filing requirements without any reasonable explanation. The Registrar of Companies, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh the respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Applicant Company as if the name of the Company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies with resultant and consequential actions like changing status of Company from 'struck off to Active - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of struck off company's name in the Register of Companies.

The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for the restoration of a struck-off company's name in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The company, incorporated in 2010 for telecommunications systems, failed to file Annual Returns and Financial Statements from 2010-11 to 2015-16, leading to its strike off by the ROC. The appeal for restoration was initially dismissed due to non-prosecution but has now been restored. The ROC, in its report, recommended allowing the appeal subject to pending filings with additional fees. The Tribunal noted the company's failure to file returns but observed some existing activities from the Financial Statements. The company expressed intentions to increase operations in the future. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name subject to payment of costs for non-compliance without reasonable explanation. The specific directives included restoring the company's status to 'Active,' filing pending documents within 45 days, ensuring compliance by the company's representative, and paying a cost of ?25,000 for each year of default. The ROC was instructed to publish the order in the official Gazette after compliance. The judgment clarified that it pertained only to violations leading to the strike off, not hindering further legal actions for any other offenses committed by the company. The Company Appeal was disposed of accordingly, with provision for issuing an urgent certified copy upon compliance with formalities.