9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Company is not carrying on any business or operations. Hence, the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench, Court-II) as well as Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi Haryana is not sustainable in law. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the compliances imposed - appeal allowed. - Company Appeal ( AT ) No. 15 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2023 - [ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Mr. Kanthi Narahari ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Varun Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Shlok Chandra, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Keshav Garg, Advocate for Income Tax Department. JUDGME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asting, transportation, irrigation, reclamations, improvement, sewage, sanitary telegraphic, telephone works, warehouse, markets, public buildings and all other such civil and related constructional works and convenience of public utility. 2. To carry on the business as builders, consultants, civil engineers, architects, surveyor, designers, town planners, estimators, valuers, interior and exterior decorators, general and goven1ment civil contractors of immovable properties, all types of structural and piling engineering work, interior designing, land Scaping and graphic. 3. To construct, execute, carry out, equip, maintain, improve, develop civil and constructional work relating to roads, electric power, heat and light supply wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- Equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid. 1,00,000 iii) In terms of Section 252 of the Act, the Respondent No. 1 struck off the name of the Appellant company from the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent No. 1 on 30th June, 2017 without any show cause notice. Due to various factors, such as the illnesses of its directors, paucity of funds, severe recession, as well as a general slump in the market, the Company s business was not very successful after incorporation and thereafter it was unable to file the necessary statutory documents with the Respondent No. 1 since the accounting year 2013-14. iv) The aforementioned inadvertence, the Appellant Company has not had the opportunity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f argument and grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal, submitted that the Company was in operation at time of striking off by the Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 30.06.2017 and thereafter has continued in operation till date. The Appellant Company has been kept operative and has been following essential corporate procedures and has been conducting its Annual General Meetings. The landed property (Inventory) which has market value of approximately Rs. 77,25,400/-. 4. It is further submitted that the principles of natural justice and the curative nature of Section 252 cast an obligation upon the Tribunal not to reject an application on technical reason but instead to give opportunity upon petitioner to provide further documents and/or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt company were found namely Pramendra Singh, Raj Chaudhary and Ajay Singh. The Company was incorporated on 03.05.2011 and the last Annual Return and Balance Sheet submitted by the company to this Office, before it was considered to be struck off, pertain to the financial years ended on 31.03.2013. Moreover, no subsequent documents had been filed by the company with this office to obtain the status of a Dormant Company under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 1956. 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 Register of Companies. Thereafter, the Registrar of Companies issued the notice in the form of STK-1 in March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Financial Years 2015-16, 2016-17 2017-18 shows that the Appellant Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench, Court-II) as well as Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi Haryana is not sustainable in law. 11. In view of the aforenoted, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench, Court-II) in Appeal 78/252(ND)/2021. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances. i) Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
