9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies subject to the compliances imposed - application allowed. - Company Appeal ( AT ) No. 88 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2023 - [ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Mr. Kanthi Narahari ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Raghunath Sethupathy Ms. Priya R , Advocate For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay Singh ; The present Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, has been filed by the Appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench-IV) in Appeal No. 471/252/ND/2019 whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the Appellant being Director of M/s Anand Synthetic Private Limited for restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), NCT of Delhi and Haryana was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Anand Synthetics Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company ) was incorporated in New Delhi under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on 21.03.1972, under its present name vide Certificate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agement by the Company. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the financial statements could not be made. On 20.09.2013, a compromise/settlement was arrived at between the minority shareholders in the aforesaid Petition and vide order dated 15.04.2014, the Company Law Board was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid Petition filed by minority shareholders as withdrawn, in light of the settlement arrived between the parties. The settlement was sought to be implemented by the family members. However, due to ill health of some of the family members, no clear instructions could be given by the Directors. v) The Respondent No. 1, Circulated vide Notice dated 01.09.2017 (Annexure-A/13 of the Appeal) under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, struck off the name of the company from the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing heard, in gross violation of the Principles of natural justice. vi) On January, 2018, the Director of the company Mr. Joginder, who was the brother of the present Appellant, had expired and the Appellant and his family members were not in a suitable or stable condition to look in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mise that the business of the company was inoperative, the company was restored on the ground that company was inoperative due to the death of the director in 2005 and that they have been regularly paying property taxes. The Court observed as hereunder: In view of the fact that there is an outstanding Income Tax liability and the company has been fulfilling its other statutory obligations in respect of payment, of Taxes, it would be just and expedient to afford a chance to the appellant to file their Returns with the ROC. The company owns valuable immovable assets which are generating income on account of which also it should not be struck off. The non-adherence to the statutory provision on time can be rectified by imposing cost. Merely to disallow the restoration on this grounds would neither be just nor equitable. Under such circumstances, the appeal merits consideration. It should only be in exceptional circumstances that courts should refuse restoration when the company had been struck off for its failure to file annual returns as that would be excessive or inappropriate penalty for the oversight. 5. It is further submitted that a statutory period of 20 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Company were found namely Joginder Singh Anand, Jasbir Kaur and Manmohan Singh Anand. The Appellant Company has not filed its Financial Statements since its incorporation, due to which the Respondent No. 1 reasonable cause to believe that the company was not in operation and in terms of provision of Section 248(1) Notice was sent to the Appellant Company and also to its directors by invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant Company has been issued STK-1 in March, 2017. Thereafter, in pursuant to sub-section (5) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, after expiry of time as mentioned in notice published/sent, and non-receipt of any objection from the company/directors, Dissolution in Form STK-7 having effect from 21.08.2017 was published on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 01.09.2017. 9. It is further stated that the Company was neither able to prove that it was carrying any business before it was strike off nor have produce any supporting information for just and equitable ground for revival before the Tribunal. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
