9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana. 2. As per the averments, M/s. Agerson Telecommunications Private Limited was incorporated on 22.08.1988 having CIN No. U32101DL1988PTC032890 as a private limited company and has its registered office at 10/62, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015. The Appellant Company is engaged in the business of designers, manufacturers, producers, fabricators, assemblers, importers, exporters, buyers, sellers, dealers, stockists, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, hirers and lessors of all kinds of communication appliances and apparatus of every kind including radios, televisions etc. 3. A sweeping action was initiated by the ROC, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as required to issue notice/letter to the Company to show cause as to why the name of the Company should not strike off from the register of companies maintained by it. However, in the instant case, no such notice under either of the Sections was received by the Company or any of its directors, which give arise to the cause of action herewith. 6. The Appellant submits that the Appellant Company has been in continuous business operation and holds immoveable properties. Further, it is submitted that if the name of the Company is restored; the Appellant Company would be able to start the work which would, inter-alia, benefit the Central/State Government in terms of the Income Tax, Goods and Service Tax and other taxes. In order to corroborate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to produce the audited balance sheet to show the company had revenue from operation for the immediate two preceding financial years when the name of the company was struck off by the RoC. It is further seen that the Appellants in the Memo of Appeal admit this fact that there is no revenue from operation from financial Year 2014-15 to 2019-2020. Therefore, we are of the considered view, the appellant company has failed to produce any document to show that the appellant company had revenue from operation or carrying on business at the time when the name of the company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies or even prior to that. 11. Therefore, at this juncture, we would like to refer to the decision of Hon'ble NCLAT in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
