Bharat Jyoti Porcelain And Allied Indutries Private Limited vs Registrar Of Companies

Sumita Purkayastha, Member (T)

The present appeal is filed by Mr. Mohan Lal, and Ms. Yogita Ralhan who are the Directors of Bharat Jyoti Porcelain And Allied Indutries 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 notice dated on 23.06.2007 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 10.02.1972 with CIN U26109DL1972PTC005985, having its registered office at Community Centre,

Ashok Vihar New Delhi ,within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

The Authorized Share Capital of the company is 10,00,000/- divided into 1000 equity shares of Rs. 1000/- each and paid up share capital of the

Company is Rs.101000 /- divided into 101 Equity Share of Rs. 1000/ each as per the Master Data Annexed.

The main objects of the company is to manufacture produce, process or assemble and deal in all sorts of porcelain, its material and all items

manufactured with porcelain like tiles, wares, pipes etc.

The Respondent herein had issued Public notice and consequently, the name of the Applicant Company was struck off vide notice bearing No. 25

dated 23.06.2007.

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 of financial years 31.03.2006 to 31.03.2008, 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 560 sub-section (1) of Companies Act, 1956.

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. 31.03.2005 to 31.03.2007. The Balance Sheet as on

31.03.2007 reflects Current Assets in form of Cash and bank balance of Rs. 4,107/-. Income as on 31.03.2007 is Rs. 67,980/-.

ii. The copy of the Perpetual lease deed dated 23.10.1980 signed by Mr Mohan Lal (Authorized signatory vide board resolution dated 1.10.1980) to get

the duly registered plot No.2 G.T. Karnal Road on behalf of the Company. The applicant has also filed the property tax challan with respect to the

above mentioned property for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19

The order was reserved on 10.11.2020 and the ROC was present and submitted that no observation/objection has been raised with respect to

revival of the name of the struck off 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 fees 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 appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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