Akshay Malviya vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

The present appeal is filed by Mr. Akshay Malviya Director of Poise Events And Exhibition Private Limited (For brevity the ‘Company’),

under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order of striking off the name of the company, passed by the

Respondent under Section 248 (1) of the Act, issued vide bearing No. ROC/ DEL1-11/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated on 08.08.2018 by Registrar of

Companies, the respondent herein.

The Appellant states that, the company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and

Haryana under the Companies Act, 1956 on 16.10.2001 with C1N U92112DL2001PTC112043, having its registered office at 110/2, DDA Tower-II

District Centre, Janakpuri New Delhi, 110058,within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

The Authorized Share Capital of the company is Rs. 15,00,000/- and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the Master Data.

The main objects of the company is to produce, buy sell, distribute, import, export or otherwise deal in feature films telefilms, television serials,

advertisement films scientific films etc.

The Respondent herein had issued Public notice bearing No. ROC-DEL/248/STK-5/2018/2912 dated 18.06.2018.Consequently, its name was

struck off vide notice bearing ROC/DEL1-11/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated on 08.08.2018 (Company's name appearing at Sl. No. 15592).

As per the notice of non-compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the Appellant Company has not filed its Annual Returns and

balance sheet for a period from financial years 31.03.2015 upto 31.03.2019, thereby giving rise to the surmise that the business of the company was

not in operation. Consequently, the name of the company was struck off in terms of provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with

Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.

The Appellant has brought forward the following documents about it being in operation and functional during the period of striking off:

i. The copies of Audited Financial Statements of the company for the period from F.Y. 2015-16 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Balance Sheet as

on 31.03.2019 reflects Fixed Assets of Rs. 138575.76/-. Current Assets in form of trade receivables of Rs. 737703/-, Cash and cash equivalents of

Rs. 2636944.47/-.Revenue from operation as on 31.03.2019 Rs. 10,95,3711.33/-.

ii. The Copy of the I3ank Statements of the company in EIDFC Bank for the period of April 2016 to March 2019 showing various transaction details

of the company.

iii. Copies of the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19, 2019-20. The tax paid by the company for A.Y. 2019-2020 is

Rs. 8,69,995/-.

The ROC and the Income Tax Department were directed to file their replies however, neither the replies have been filed nor they appeared before

the Tribunal, hence the order was reserved on 10.12.2020 and it is presumed that the ROC and the Income Tax Department has no objection with

respect to restoration of the name of the Company.

The grounds contemplated under section 252 of Companies Act, 2013, are that the company was carrying on business or was in operation at the

time of striking off its name, and where it appears ""just"" to the Adjudicating Authority that the name of the company is to be restored to the Register

of Companies and the Section 252(1) further contemplates that one of the above three conditions are required to be satisfied before exercising

jurisdiction to restore the company to its original name on the register of the Registrar of Companies.

The Appellant has submitted sufficient evidence of it being in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore it could not be termed as a

defunct company as per section 252 of the Act. The Appellant undertakes to comply with the provisions of the act after its restoration. Thus, taking

into consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act,2013, which vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company, whose

name has been struck off, and such Company is able to demonstrate that it is just to do so, can restore the name of the Company, in the Register and

in the interest of all stakeholders, including the Appellant itself, who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in the register maintained by

Registrar of Companies, the company deserved to be restored.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The Public Notice of Registrar of Companies, striking off the name of the company, is hereby declared illegal

and set aside. The restoration of the company's name to the Register of Registrar of Companies is ordered subject to its filing of all outstanding

documents with proper filing fees along with additional Ices required under law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or

any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns, and also subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to

Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The name of the Appellant Company shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of

Companies, as if the name of the company had not been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The direction for freezing the Bank Account(s) of the Appellant company, if on this ground, shall consequently be also set aside immediately to

enable the company carry out its business operation. Compliance of this order for restoration shall be made by the respondent with all its consequential

effects within one week of compliance by the appellant

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.