9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 998DL2002PTC114525 is hereby declared illegal and is set aside - Company Appeal No. 158/(ND)/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - MR. M. M. KUMAR AND MR. S. K. MOHAPATRA, JJ. For The Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Gursat Singh, Advocate And Mr. Manish Raj, Company Prosecutor For The Income Tax Department : Ms. Lakshmi Gurang, Standing Counsel ORDER S.K. Mohapatra, Member 1. The directors of Arora Buildwell Private Limited (for brevity Company ) has filed the present appeal under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. 2. M/s. Arora Buildwell Private Limited was incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 originally in the name of Purshottam Ispat Private Limited on 11.03.2002. Subsequently on 07.03.2005 the name of the company was changed to the present name i.e. Arora Buildwell Private Limited. The registered office of the company is 586A, 6 Govind Puri, New Delhi - 110019, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. It is the case of petitioner that the name of the Company was struck off from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , copy of certificate of Importer Exporter Code, Copy of Rent Invoices, purchase bills etc. have also been placed on record to show regular functioning of the company. Apart from this the financial statement of the company for the year ending 31.03.2016 shows the financial position of the company as under: PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN Rs. Source of Funds 1,500,000.00 Shareholder s Capital Share Capital Reserves and Surplus (2,182,840) Non Current Liabilities 109,744,122 Long Term Borrowings 1,264,975 Defferred Tax Liabilities Other long term liabilities 702,900 Current Liabilities Provisions Trade Payable 1,657,499 Other Liabilities 296,927 TOTAL 112,983,583 ASSET ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Companies Act, 2013, which envisages that:- Appeal to Tribunal 252. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248, may file an appeal to the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Registrar and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the removal of the name of the company from the register of companies is not justified in view of the absence of any of the grounds on which the order was passed by the Registrar, it may order restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies: (3) If a company, or any member or creditor or workman thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under sub-section (5) of section 248 may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bombay High Court under the old Companies Act, 1956 has held that: The object of Section 560(6) of the Companies Act is to give a chance to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, within period of 20 years, and give them an opportunity of carrying on the business only after the company judge is satisfied that such restoration is necessary in the interest of justice 16. In connection with the non-filing of statutory records, it is pertinent to refer to the findings of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mace Plastromics (P.) Ltd. v. ROC [2010] 104 SCL 277 (Del), wherein it was held that: When the name of the company was struck off after following the prescribed procedure for non-filing of statutory records, even though the contentions of the company that the officials entrusted with responsibility of filing documents had failed to do so cannot be accepted, yet since the company was a running company and the application had been filed in time, the court had power to restore the name of the company. In the present case in order to achieve the most satisfactory and fairest solut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
