Bramheshwar Kumar vs Registrar Of Companies Of Delhi

Company Appeal (AT) No. 36 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 11.09.2023 of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-III in Company Appeal No. 156/252/ND/2020 whereby the said Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 35 of 2024 has been filed against the order in Restoration Application No. RA/59/2023 in Company Appeal No. 156/252/ND/2020 wherein vide order dated 30.10.2023, the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-III had dismissed the application seeking restoration of the said Company Appeal.

The Appellant is one of the Directors of M/s Kush Graphics Pvt. Ltd. (Hereinafter referred as “Company”). The said company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies of Delhi NCR on 19.11.2019. The Appellant had filed Company Appeal No. 156/252/ND/2020 before the Ld. NCLT for restoration of the  Company  on  24.01.2020.  Notice  was  issued  by  the  Ld.  NCLT  to  the Respondents. Vide order dated 11.09.2021, the Ld. NCLT dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The said order is reproduced bellow for reference:

“This appeal has been filed in the year 2020. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant last appeared in this matter on 03.02.2020. Therefore, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Today, also no one has appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

The matter is dismissed for non-prosecution.”

The Appellant herein filed Recall Application no. 59/2023 on 11.10.2023 seeking recall of order of dated 11.09.2023. The said recall application was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2023. The said order is reproduced bellow for reference:

“This application has been filed seeking restoration (sic) of the order dated 11.09.2023 by which the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

We are not satisfied with the reasons given by the Applicant for restoring the main matter.

Therefore, RA-59/2023 dismissed.”

The Appellant had filed an affidavit dated 17.04.2024 before this Tribunal submitting that he was not able to represent before the Ld. NCLT due to lapses on the part of his Counsel. The Appellant submitted that he may not be punished for act of his Counsel. The Appellant further submitted that the Company was deriving revenue from operations in the Financial Year 2016-17 of Rs. 34 lakhs, in Financial Year 2017-18 of Rs. 40 lakhs, in Financial Year 2017-18 of Rs. 49 lakhs and in Financial Year 2018-19 of Rs. 45 lakhs. The Appellant submitted that it was a small-scale company and had made reasonable profits in the period leading to strike off of the Company. The relevant extracts of annual return and balance sheet submitted by the Appellant for the financial year 2016-17 to 2018-19 are reproduced below:

Particulars

FY- 2016-17

(in Rs.)

FY- 2017-18

(in Rs.)

FY- 2017-18

(in Rs.)

FY- 2018-19

(in Rs.)

Revenue from

Operation

34,34,353.45/-

40,17,589/-

49,26,741.38/-

45,01,513/-

Profit/Loss

before tax

1,36,453.62/-

1,57,180/-

1,77,491/-

1,30,742/-

Profit/Loss

after tax

94,289.62/-

1,10,282/-

1,35031/-

99,259/-

Reserve  and

surplus

94,290/-

2,04,572/-

3,39,603/-

4,38,862/-

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and going through records, we feel this is a fit case for remanding back to Ld. NCLT for consideration of the Appeal on merits for restoration of the Company. We restrain from giving any comments on the merits of the case. The Ld. NCLT may expeditiously decide the appeal of the Appellant. The Appellant shall join the proceedings and shall not take any adjournment.

With these directions, the Company Appeal (AT) No. 35 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) 36 of 2024 are allowed. All related IAs, if any, are closed. No order as to costs.