9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench, Court-II) in Appeal No. 491/252/ND/2020 whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the Appellant for restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), NCT of Delhi & Haryana was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Appellant company - M/s M Kumar Syntex Private Limited ("Company' or "the Company") was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 10.04.1987 as a Private Company as Limited by Shares with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, for the purposes of activities related to textile having weaving work. The Company diligently f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady but could be filed with the Registrar of Companies. iv) The Company has been in active operation only with the security of that lease hold property and intends to start the textile business again with his son Mr. Jai Kumar and proposed investors and continue to carry out its business objectives and that the Company holds lease hold property the motive of restoration is not only to get property as lease hold property cannot be sold. However, if the use of this assets starts again in the textile business, it will be a huge possibility to generate employment and grow business on profit basis. Mr. Mahendra Kumar and Mr. Jai Kumar also having a suit shop in the area of Chandni Chowk hence both the current directors have experience in text ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Statements & Annual Returns. Consequently, the Registrar of Companies initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the purpose of striking off the name of the company of the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. Aggrieved by the order of the RoC, the Appellant company approached before the Tribunal against the struck off order passed by the Respondent No. 1 /RoC and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the order impugned dated 31.08.2021 which led to filing of this Appeal. 3. CS Bharti Kashyap appeared on behalf of the Appellant company and during the course of argument and also grounds mentioned in memo of Appeal submitted that Mr. Mahendra Kumar, main director of the company were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase no notice was served upon the company at its registered address or at the addresses of the directors of the company and hence the Appellant never got an opportunity to substantiate if the company is a going concern. Further, in the present case while passing an impugned order U/s 248(5) the Registrar has failed to take note of the requirements enumerated under sub-clause (6) of Section 248 which specifically states that before passing an impugned order to strike-off the name of the Company, the Registrar should first satisfy himself that sufficient provision has been made for the realization of all amounts due to the company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities within a reasonable time. In the present case the company has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited was incorporated on 10.04.1987 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and the last Directors of the Appellant Company namely Mahender Kumar, Madhu Rani and Jai Kumar. The last available Balance Sheet & Annual Return as filed by the Company is shown for the Financial Year 1999 before it was considered to be struck off. Hence, this office had reasonable cause to believe that the company was not in operation and therefore, the name of the company was considered for striking off from the Registrar of Companies. The name of the company was identified for striking off under Section 560(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and company was strike off in terms of Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 on 23.06.2007. 8. It is further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 has not relevance, since these pertain to the post-striking off period. Further, the lease deed of the Appellant Company with UPIDCL does snot give any ownership rights to the Appellant Company. In nutshell, there is nothing placed on record, which could suggest that the Company was either in operation or carrying out its business or it is otherwise just to restore the name of the Company in the register of ROC. In view of the above, the Appellant Company not having any valid submissions, therefore, the Appeal may be dismissed as the Respondent No. 1 has duly complied the law and the Tribunal has passed the appropriate order in public interest. 11. After hearing the parties, going through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
