9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd the annual returns for the year 2006 onwards till 2017. The appellant company is having asset and due to personal difficulties of the Directors they could not start business. In such circumstance, the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal is not sustainable in law - name of the appellant company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 414 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2020 - Justice Jarat Kumar Jain Member (Judicial), Mr. Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) And Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Harbola and Mr. Ketan Madan, Advocates For the Respondents : Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Advocate JUDGMENT JARAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant company has not carrying out any business since its incorporation. Hence, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of ROC. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal and also filed the Affidavit of Director, Laxmi Narayan along with documents. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Mr. Laxmi Narayan and his brother Mr. Vinod Kumar incorporated the company to start the business of milling, processing, manufacturing, producing, food grains, pulses, rice, cereals and other grains. It is further submitted that the Company owned a property bearing Khasra No. 164, Village Ajijpur, Tehsil Chhata, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1996 Directors of the company intended to set up the rice factory/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial to the shareholders of the company. Hence, the order be set aside and ROC be direct to restore the company s name in its Register. 7. Learned counsel of the Respondents submits that the appellant company had not filed financial statements and annual returns since 2006. Following procedure viz in Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 9 of the Companies Act (Removable of names of Companies Act from the Registrar of Companies) Rules, 2016 the name of the Company was struck off. National Company Law Tribunal after considering of documents on record has rightly affirmed the order passed by ROC. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we considered the submissions. 9. Having note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by National Company Law Tribunal is not sustainable in law. 13. From the above discussions and observations we have come to the conclusion that it would be just that the name of the company is directed to be restored. (i) Impugned order is set aside. The name of the appellant company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances (ii) Appellant shall pay costs of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to the Registrar of Companies, Allahabad within 30 days. (iii) After restoration of the appellant company s name in the register, the company shall file annual returns and balance sheets for the period 2006 onwards. The company shall also pay requisite charges/fee as well as late fee/ charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
