9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss during aforesaid period, but failed to file the Annual Returns with RoC under a wrong notion of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 - the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Act stipulate that this Tribunal may direct restoration of a 1st Respondent Company's name, if it is just and equitable to do so. In view of the averments made and evidence placed, refusal to restore will be an excessive penalty for the over-sight on the part of the 1st Respondent Company. The 2nd Respondent (RoC, Hyderabad) is directed to restore the name of 1st Respondent Company in the Register of Companies - application allowed. - CA No. 16/252/HDB/2020 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2020 - K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy, Member (J) For the Appellant : V. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with payment of cost imposed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) enables the 1st Respondent Company to deliver the order through electronic mode in the form of an attachment to Form INC-28 or with any other relevant form as prescribed by Ministry of Corporate Affairs. f) Order that upon such delivery, the Registrar of Companies (ROC), do, in his Official Name and Seal, publish the order in the Official Gazette enabling the 1st Respondent Company to be in the Register of Companies maintained by ROC. g) Upon request of the Company, direct ROC to update the View Signatory Details of Master Data of the Company. h) Allow the 1st Respondent Company to file pending Financial Statements and Annual Returns w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Board of Directors as well as General Meetings regularly in Compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. 2.4. The 1st Respondent Company has failed to file its Financial Statements and Annual Returns for the Financial Years since 2014-15. The Directors of the 1st Respondent Company were under the opinion that the Annual Returns and Financial Statement for the year 2014-15 to 2016-17, can be filed with the Registrar of Companies with additional fee as contemplated under Section 92 and 137 read with Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013, during the month of September, 2017 prior to conducting the Annual General Meeting. There is no restriction in the MCA portal with regard to belated filing of documents with additional fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. Since the Company is expecting prospective business in future, the Bank Account will be opened as soon as the Company status becomes active with the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal. The 1st Respondent Company has not deposited any extra money during demonetization of ₹ 500/- and ₹ 1000/- notes in its Bank Accounts after 07th November 2016 except the routine money of the business transactions from time to time. The Company had done business transactions through Specific Bank Notes (SBN) from 8th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016 strictly adhering to the permitted receipts and payments as allowed by law and the same has been recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the Company. The 1st Respondent Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also the details of the Shareholding Pattern, Capital Structure and history of compliance has been furnished. While submitting the above facts the RoC has raised the following objections in its Report: Para No. 9(3): The applicant has not filed any Balance Sheet or Annual Returns with the Respondent since 2015-16. However, a copy of the audited Balance sheet as at 31.03.2015 to 31.03.2018 is enclosed to the Restoration petition now filed before this Tribunal. Para No. 9(4): he Company has to produce proof of having done the business for considering its application under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 . 4. Counsel for the Applicant filed memo of compliance to the observations made by 2nd Respondent in its report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estoration of a 1st Respondent Company's name, if it is just and equitable to do so. In view of the averments made and evidence placed, refusal to restore will be an excessive penalty for the over-sight on the part of the 1st Respondent Company. 4. Accordingly, having satisfied with the reasons as mentioned in the Application as also on the perusal of (2nd Respondent) RoC's report dated 14.02.2020 vide no. ROCH/LEGAL/SEC252/076359/MGCTPL/JTA(S)/20 19, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to order the restoration of name of the 1st Respondent Company in the Register of Companies, maintained by the 2nd Respondent (RoC Hyderabad, Telangana). 5. The Applicant shall file all the pending Financial Stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
