9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act, 2013 being that a company not carrying on any business or in operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years is liable to be removed from the register of companies, the onus of proof that the appellant company was carrying on business and conducting operations during the aforesaid period lay on the appellant who failed to discharge the same by not even respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Mehool Rasik Parekh, claiming to be the Director of Infinity Film Holdings Pvt Ltd seeks reversal of the impugned order dated 21.8.2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, by virtue of which application of Infinity Film Holding Pvt Ltd to restore its name in the register of companies stands dismissed on the ground that the company was not in operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the inevitable consequence to which exception is taken by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a reply given by the Minister of State for Corporate Affairs to a question in Lok Sabha which essentially dealt with the action taken by the Government against the Directors of the Shell companies. The document relied upon is irrelevant for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the learned counsel for the appellant, when asked to substantiate appellant s claim of being in operation during the aforesaid period, failed to lay any documentary proof regarding commencement of operations and business by the appellant company subsequent to its incorporation. Learned counsel for the appellant also failed to demonstrate that the appellant company had been conducting operations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
