9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Ms. Anjali Sharma, Ms. Simmi Bhamrah, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Sr. Panel Counsel Govt. of India with Ms. Mitika Raja, AROC JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay Singh ; The present Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (Court-V, New Delhi) in Appeal 85/ND/2021 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 and Haryana was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The company, M/s. Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 4th May, 1962, as a private company limited by shares with its CIN No. being U34300DL1962PTC003199. Its authorised share capital was Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) and paid-up share capital was Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). The affairs of the said company were being managed mainly by the Appellant when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the company had filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.22295 of 1992, before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the sale proclamation fixing the auction sale of the plot of land belonging to the company and vide its order dated 12th June 1992, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to stay the auction sale of the property. Considerable further litigation had ensued with respect to the plot of land owned by the company and eventually, vide order dated 7th September, 2006, passed in another writ petition that had come to be filed, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3790 of 2000, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad was pleased to set aside the auction sale of the said plot of land (Annexure-A-3 of the Appeal). iv) Against the setting aside of the auction sale of the plot of land belonging to the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., the auction purchaser, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Goel, had filed a Special Leave Petition, being S.L.P. (C) No. 15873 of 2006, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide a detailed judgment dated 8th July, 2010, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5177 of 2010 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15873 of 2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant hereto, had therefore entered into a lease license agreement with the Ghaziabad Development Authority for a two years' tenure commencing from 27th September, 2014. Since the lease tenure has now lapsed the land in question has reverted back to the company, as evidenced by the communication dated 1st January, 2020, addressed by the Appellant on behalf of the company to the Vice Chairperson of the GDA (Annexure A-9 of the Appeal). The appellant had also averred in the appeal before the National Company Law Tribunal, that though he was taking steps in his individual capacity, including making payments and effecting compliances on behalf of the company, to keep it active and functional, it was however becoming increasingly difficult for him to do so. The company had engaged the services of professionals to perform the task of filing its returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies. However, in the long years of litigation over its valuable asset, i.e., the land obtained by it on lease from the U.P.S.I.D.C., most of the employees of the company and other service-providers engaged by it, had left. Some essential compliances were therefore neglected as a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies. The impugned order has been passed without due application of mind because the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., was constrained to halt operations since its land, and hence its office and manufacturing facility, was grabbed by land mafia, and only after twenty years of litigation, culminating with an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8th July, 2010, was its most valuable asset, i.e., the large plot of land having approximate area of 27,822 square yards, at Sahibabad Industrial Area, restored to its possession. 5. It is further submitted that the impugned order is perverse also because its fails to appreciate that after its land was restored to the company's possession in year 2010, it had been making payments with respect to the land, such as rental and other dues of the U.P.S.I.D.C., in furtherance of its effort to recommence operations. The Tribunal below failed to appreciate that for no fault of its own, the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., had to halt operations, but after the wrong done was corrected by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was making all efforts to resume the work that it was previou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies from the register of Companies) Rule, 2016 vide notice in the form of STK-7 dated 07.06.2017. 7. It is further stated that the action of striking off of the present Company was legal and justified and was the result of the operation of the law, as the company was not carrying on any operations for a period of two immediately preceding financial years (as indicated by non-filing of the financial statements of the Company for two or more years). The Company has not attached any Financial Statements which further fails to support the claim of the company that it was carrying on any business at the time of strike off. 8. It is further stated that this Tribunal may please issue directions to the Appellant to file all the pending Annual Returns and Balance Sheets of the subject company with the Registrar of Companies within such time as specified by this Tribunal and also may award cost in favour of the Respondent No. 1/ ROC as the Appellant failed to file its Statutory Returns with the Respondents under the Companies Act, 2013. 9. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2/Income Tax Department in his Reply stated that the Company i.e. M/s. Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd. may not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
