9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Sh Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) JUDGEMENT MR. BALVINDER SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) The appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by impugned order dated 7.12.2017 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai in Company Petition No.CP/111/(252)/2017 whereby the appeal of the appellants for restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies filed under Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 (Act in short) was dismissed. The NCLT held that since the appellant company did not file its annual accounts and annual returns w.e.f. the FY ending 2000-01 onwards till date due to which it has been struck off from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also issued Show Cause Notice dated 20th July, 2005 as per Section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and subsequently struck off the name of the appellant company. 4. The appellants filed company petition before the NCLT for restoration of the name of the appellant company in register of companies and the NCLT dismissed the petition on the ground that since appellant No.1 was statutorily disqualified on account of non-filing of returns and in any case no plausible explanation for non-filing has been given. 5. It is stated that the appellant No.1 company is entitled to file the application/petition for restoration of its name to the ROC under the Companies Act, 2013. It is stated that being an artificial juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Act,2013. It is also stated that the directors of the appellant company will not incur disqualification as Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be applied to directors of a Private Limited Company. Further the company was struck off from the register of companies on 25.5.2007 and hence Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be applied. 8. We have heard the parties and perused the record. 9. Appellant has argued that appellant company is managed by two shareholders namely the appellant No.2 and one Mr. Gnanaselvam Savarimuthu (Pare 7 Page 5). Appellant further argued that the as per Section 252(3) of Companies Act, 2013 he is entitled to file revival application being sharehold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secured loan from directors. It is further argued that the appellants have fixed assets in the nature of land, building, medical equipment, electrical installation, furniture, office equipment to the tune of ₹ 1,09,12,539/-. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the company has also rental income and are meeting the expenses out of that rental income. 13. Counsel for the ROC has not submitted his arguments on this aspect. 14. We have gone through two Tax Bills submitted at Page No.43 and 44 and observe that the Tax Bills are in the name of Chandrasekaran V and not in the name of company and amount of ₹ 30274/- each have been paid Cheque No.57066 dated 24.10.2016 from Account No.102466041 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f property is given and also Certificate of Encumbrance on Property is attached. Tax Bill refers to one Chandrasekara V with suffix in bracket as Venko Hospital in the address and relates to his house. Translation of Certificate of Encumbrance do not claim to be True copies and do not link property to the company and yet again are of 1994 and 1996. 15. We find from Pages 58 to 89 of the additional affidavit the copy of the sale deed dated 24.1.1996 in the name of the appellant company. Learned counsel of the appellant has argued that the company has taken loan secured by a first charge on the Fixed Assets. Only evidence of the same is in the Balance Sheet of year 1999, copy of which has been placed on record. No proof has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
