9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dissatisfied by the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (Court-II) in Appeal No. 51/252(ND)/2021 whereby and whereunder Appeal filed by the Appellants for restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (the 'ROC'), was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Appellant Company was incorporated on 18.04.2011 under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana and its registered office is situated at New Delhi-110092. The Appellant No. 1 company is in the business of trading of Organic Food and other allied Prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorporation. The Respondent/RoC had not passed any order for its satisfaction as enumerated under Section (6) of Section 248 of the Companies Act. iv) The Appellant No. 1 company was a going concern at the time of striking off its name from the Register of members by the RoC/Respondent and to substantiate, the Appellant had annexed imperative documents such as Audited Balance Sheet, Financial Statements, GST Certificate, Independent Auditor Report and Bank Account Statements in the Appeal filed before the NCLT by the present Appellants under Section 252 of the Companies Act, pertaining to its functioning during the time when RoC/Respondent in complete violation of the Statutory provisions under Companies Act, 2013 had strike off its nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. vii) The Appellant No. 1 company was preparing all its returns etc. and was relying on the professional to file the same. To the uttar shock to the Appellants when it was apprised to them that the name of Appellant No. 1 Company was struck off and removed from the Register of Companies by the Respondent. The Appellant No. 1 company was maintaining its bank accounts with Yes Bank and State Bank of India for more than Five Years and the transaction in it had been done till the year 2017. viii) The Appellants filed Appeal before the NCLT against the order of striking off the name of the Appellant No. 1 company from the register maintained by the RoC/Respondent and after hearing the parties the NCLT dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 248(6) of the Act which says that the Registrar, before passing an order under sub-section (5), shall satisfy himself that sufficient provision has been made for the realisation of all amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations by the company within a reasonable time and, if necessary, obtain necessary undertakings from the managing director, director or other persons in charge of the management of the company. 5. It is further submitted that the RoC/Respondent in complete violation of Section 248(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 published notice dated 30.06.2017 as per section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. 6. It is further submitted that the Tribunal in complete disregard to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside and the instant Appeal be allowed. 9. On the other hand, the Respondent / Registrar of Companies during the course of argument and in his reply, it is stated that the Appellant company has not filed any annual Returns and Balance Sheet. 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 Act. Hence, that office had reasonable cause to believe that the company was not in operation, and therefore, the name of company was considered for striking off from the Register of Companies. 10. It is further stated that this office of the RoC issued the notice in the form of STK-1 in the month of March, 2017 intimating the company and the directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies) as the Appellants failed to file its statutory returns with the Respondent under the Companies Act, 2013. 13. After hearing the parties, going through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that the Audited Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 2018 and Bank Account Statement for the Financial Years 2017-18 and especially for the month of June, 2017 show that the Appellant No. 1 Company was actively involved in business transactions at the time of Striking off the name of the Appellant No. 1 Company by the Respondent vide its Circular dated 30.06.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant No. 1 Company is not carrying on any business or operations. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
