9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concerned company to still show cause. In the present matter NCLT has observed the fact that ROC followed due process to strike off the name of the company, was not disputed. When ROC issued notices to the appellant, the appellant never responded. As such the subsequent efforts to show that the appellant was in business or in operation or that it has property was never taken up with the ROC to find any fault of the action taken by ROC. The appellant has pointed out an agreement of sale of 2010 but there is no supporting sale deed to show that the transaction was even completed and property has been purchased by the company. NCLT has already observed that nothing is shown as carrying out work on any such land. In fact nothing is shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd to Register of Companies. The Learned Counsel for Appellants is heard with regard to the merit of the appeal. It appears that the company Shaila Real Estate Developers Private Ltd (Company) was incorporated on 4.4.2007. It is stated that the company filed its statutory returns as are required to be filed under Act till 2011 and thereafter there was default in filing the financial statements and statutory returns. The appellant claims that due to inadvertence and lack of competent professional in the company the returns remained to be filed and there was no motive behind the non-filing of the e-forms with the Registrar of Companies. The appellant claimed in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the appeal filed that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse observations or objections except praying that the statutory required documents need to be complied with. NCLT took notice the statements of the Income Tax Department also. NCLT referred to the evidences placed before it in the form of (1) Income tax Returns for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, (2) bank statements of the company since 2010 to 2018 and audited financial statements for the years ended 31.3.2015, 31.3.2016 and 31.3.2017 and in para 5 and 6 of the judgement observed as under:- 5. We have perused the documents filed by the Appellants. It is pertinent from the financial statements filed by the Company that there was no revenue generation in the Company for the years ended 31.3.2015, 31.3.2016 and 31.3.2017. The provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of said agreement of sale at Page 205 which showed the name of the company in the Annexure A (Page 226). The argument is that when immovable property is there it is just and appropriate to restore the name of the company. 7. There is no dispute that STK 7 was issued on 30.6.2017 after issue of STK 5. The appellant has not filed the copy of the STK 5. The number and date of STK5 is referred in STK 7. STK5 is published and the notice gives chance to the concerned company to still show cause. In the present matter NCLT has observed the fact that ROC followed due process to strike off the name of the company, was not disputed. When ROC issued notices to the appellant, the appellant never responded. As such the subsequent effort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
