AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Application has been filed on 09.05.2023 by Mr. Ashwani Bhambani (hereinafter as Applicant), Director of Incredible Braj (OPC) Private Limited under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred as the Act) praying for restoration of the Company’s name i.e. Incredible Braj (OPC) Private Limited in the Register of Companies maintained by Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred as “ROC/Respondent”).
Incredible Braj (OPC) Private Limited (hereinafter called as ‘Company’) was incorporated on 05.03.2021 under the Companies Act, 2013 bearing CIN: U74999UP2021OPC142903. The registered office of the company is at C-16 RADHA NAGAR, MATHURA- 281004 (U.P.).
The Company is engaged in the business of buying, selling, reselling, importing, exporting, transporting, storing, developing, promoting, marketing or supplying, trading, dealing in any manner whatsoever in worship stuff goods on retail as well as on wholesale basis in India or elsewhere and other ancillary work in same field and same products.
The Authorized Share Capital of the Company is Rs.1,00,000/- consisting of 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. Issued, Subscribed and paid up Capital is 1,00,000/- consisting of 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/-each held by one person namely Mr. Ashwani Bhambani. The Applicant Company is managed by Sole Director namely, Mr. Ashwani Bhambani.
It is stated that Applicant Company has defaulted in filing the requisite Form INC 20A (declaration for commencement of business and subscription to shares of the Company as it was undertaken to pay at the time of incorporation of the Company and declaration to that effect) with the Registrar of Companies as required under Section 10A(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 23A of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 within prescribed time of 180 days.
It is also submitted that the Applicant Company, due to lack of coordination with the engaged professional was unable to file the requisite INC 20A form within time. The Applicant consulted another professional for filing of the abovementioned form but realized late of the related filing charges.
The Applicant was served notice under Section 248(1) of the Act by the Respondent but he contends that due to lack of knowledge and lack of coordination with the professional, he was unable to reply back in time. Before the Applicant could file the same, the Respondent had already struck off the Applicant Company’s name from the register by way of its STK-7 (Public Notice) dated 5.12.22 as per Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Applicant submits that business of the Company has commenced and the Company is having a turnover of Rs. 1,43,087/- through its business operations before its name was struck off from the register. Also, share subscription has been made by Mr. Ashwani Bhambani. The Applicant company has also been assigned a project by the U.P. Braj Teerth Vikas Parishad on 13.04.2022 copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.5. The financial statement for the period 12.03.2021 to 15.07.2022, have been annexed as Annexure No.4 with the application.
However, due to lack of coordination with engaged professional, necessary declaration in Form INC-20A could not be made. It indicates that the above mentioned non-compliance was unintentional and thus, the Applicant deserves the chance of being heard on the basis of principles of natural justice.
The Applicant Company has mentioned that during the course of business, they have not engaged in the trading of shares, mutual funds and other investment instruments nor accepted any deposits from the public. They also maintained their financial records from the year 2021-22 but could not furnish them in time to the ROC due to them being struck off. Financial statement for the year 2021-22 has been annexed as Annexure No.6.
The Applicant Company submits that they have not been able to file Income Tax Return (the PAN no. of the Company being AAGCI0500C) due to its name being struck off but are willing to comply with the formalities once it is revived. The copy of the PAN card is annexed as Annexure No. 7.
The Applicant Company submits that they approached this Tribunal as soon as they learnt of the publication of the notification on the MCA portal that their name is struck off from the register.
The Applicant Company submits that it was carrying on its business operation at the time of striking off and also that it currently has one project on hand from a public authority which it will be able to complete only when it is revived.
The Applicant Company mentioned that an Order on similar grounds has been passed in an appeal to NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, in the matter of Kamlesh Kumar Member of (Cropsure India Pvt Ltd) v. ROC, Gujarat in Appeal/35(AHM) 2022, where the name of the company had been struck off by the Respondent on the ground that the company could not file Form No. INC 20A declaration for commencement of Business with the Registrar of Companies as required under Section 10A(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 23A of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, within prescribed time (180 days) due to inadvertence omission and oversight mistake on the part of the management which was not deliberate. Further the subscribed capital was deposited by the members of the company within 180 days of the incorporation of the company but failed to intimate the commencement of business to the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. However, the Hon'ble Tribunal pursuant to the hearing of the matter vide its order dated 28/11/2022, finally directed to restore the original status of the Company as if the name of the Company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies with resultant and consequential actions like changing status of the Company from 'Struck off' to ‘Active’.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, the Applicant Company has prayed to pass appropriate order in terms of Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act 2013 for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the Registrar of Companies.
After considering the above appeal, notices were issued to ROC and the Income Tax Department calling for their reports to satisfy ourselves whether restoration of the company would be in the interest of justice and in the public interest and appellant are genuinely interested in running the company after its restoration and the defaults on account of which, the company has been struck off, have actually happened or not.
The ROC/Respondent has filed its reply wherein they have made the following observations as stated below:-
“4.1-That Incredible Braj Private Limited the appellant mentioned above (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was incorporated on 05.03.2021 as a Public Limited Company. The registered office of the company as per record available with MCA portal is situated at C-16, Radha Nagar, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh- 281004.
i. The Respondent submits that the Applicant Company’s name was struck off from the register of companies on account of default in statutory compliances that "the subscribers to the Memorandum have not paid the subscription which they had undertaken to pay at the time of incorporation of a company and a declaration to this effect has not been filed within one hundred and eighty days of its incorporation under sub section (1) of Section 10A". After following the due process of law as per prevalent mandate of the Companies Act, 2013 and after giving ample opportunity of being heard by way of issuance of show cause notice to the company and its directors at their registered address in MCA21 according to the principles of natural justice and only then the name of the company was struck off.
ii. Respondents state that it is pertinent to mention here that neither any reply to the show cause notice has been received from the company nor its directors. They have also not complied with Section 10A of the Companies Act, 2013 with the office of the Respondent on MCA Portal. This is in contravention of the provision of Section 10A read with Section 248(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 that the Appellant Company was not carrying on any business or was not in operation.
iii. The Respondents submit that since the company has not filed its declaration under section 10A of the Companies Act and has not sought the commencement of business certificate under the Companies Act, 2013, from a legal perspective the company cannot run its business.
Respondents further state that the company commenced its business and also the subscriber had contributed the subscription money on 02.04.2021 itself which they had undertaken to pay at the time of incorporation, which can be evidenced in the bank statements of the Bank of Baroda in the name INCREDIBLE BRAJ (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED for the period 12.03.2021 account opening date) to 15.07.2022. But then they inadvertently could not file the form INC 20 A with the Registrar of Companies as required under Section 10A(1)(a) of the Companies Act,2013 and Rule 23 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rule,2014 within prescribed time (180 days) due to lack of coordination and follow up with professional engaged for same.
iv. The Respondents are of the view that the company does not deserve to be restored. However, Respondents does state that the matter may be decided on its merit, subject to the assurance by the company to file all the pending statutory returns and making of all the compliance of the Companies Act, 2013, which the Applicant is willing to and assuring to do the same in the prescribed manner.
Therefore, in view of the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned above, it is most respectfully prayed that the present Company Petition liable to be dismissed with heavy cost against the petitioners as the Registrar of Companies has incurred huge cost for striking off the company due to default in filing statutory documents which includes Manpower, Advertisement, Statutory cost, postal charges etc.
Further, this Hon'ble Tribunal may gracious to pass any order which deem to be fit, subject to the assurance by the company to file all the pending financial statements with the office of the answering respondent through MCA Portal subject to the condition that all the filling to be made under the provision of Companies Act, 2013 in MCA21 registry with requisite fee/additional fee within a given period of time.”
In response to the Report filed by the ROC, the Applicant has submitted rejoinder and has submitted as under:
(i) The Applicant submitted that contrary to the Respondent’s report the Applicant Company was incorporated as One Person Private Limited Company and not as a Public Company Limited by shares.
(ii) The Applicant denies that any opportunity was awarded to them of being heard before its name was struck off by Respondents and that no related supplementary document has been produced by the Respondent in this regard.
(iii) The Applicant admits that the notices were issued by the Respondent and requisite return could not be filed since its name was struck off. However, the Applicant denies rest of the contentions raised by the Respondent regarding non filing of declaration under Section 10A of the Companies Act, 2013 i.e. not seeking commencement of business certificate and running company without any requisite legal sanction.
(iv) The Applicant also contends that not replying to the alleged notices under Section 248(1) and 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was neither intentional nor deliberate but rather due to lack of coordination with engaged professional and that no prejudice shall be caused to the Respondent in this case if the Applicant’s name is restored in the register.
(v) The Applicant further submits that it is willing to comply with outstanding documents as provided under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 once its name is restored in the register.
(vi) The Applicant relied on multiple judgements in support of its contention.
The Applicant also contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad Bench dated 31st August, 2017 in the matter of M/s Snap Pack Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, U.P. and Uttarakhand, Kanpur (CP No. 09/ALD/2017) the Hon'ble Bench in para 8 held that:
"this Court is expected to adopt a liberal approach for allowing restoration of the name of the company in the Registrar of the ROC, and by allowing the same no serious prejudice is going to cause to a third party. As the company is still having its assets with no creditors, therefore, the company can restart its business upon being restored in the Register of the ROC.”
The Applicant also referred that as per the decision of the Hon'ble NCLT New Delhi Bench dated 18th May, 2017 in the matter of M/s M. G. Power Systems Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (CP No. 47/2015), the Hon'ble Tribunal in para 10 and 11 of order held that:
"the object of Section 560 (6) of the Companies Act 1956 is to give a chance to the Company, its members and creditors to revive the Company which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, within a period of 20 years, and give them an opportunity of carrying on the business only after the company judge is satisfied that such restoration is necessary in the interest of justice."
The above said judgement was also followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.P. 23/ 2016 titled as "Ascot Shoes Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies" and in several other cases such as Pancham Hotels Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies", bearing C.P. No. 554/ 2014; M/s MedtechPharma (India) Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, bearing C.P. No. 241/ 2009: M/s Santaclaus Toys private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, bearing C.P. No. 271/ 2009, M/s Deepsone Non-ferrous Rolling Mills Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, bearing C.P. No. 285/ 2009; M/s Kakku E and P Control Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, bearing C.P. No. 409/ 2008; M/s Sohal Agencies Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, bearing C.P. No. 297/2009.
As per the decision of Hon'ble NCLT New Delhi Bench dated 25th April, 2018 in the matter of M/s Three Star Properties Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (CP No. 127/ 252/ND/ 2018), the Hon'ble Tribunal in para 8 of order held that:
“while construing section 560 (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 pari materia to the present section 252(3), as extracted above of the Companies Act, 2013, it has been held that the word "just" has to be understood in the background of the specific language of the sub- section not on the basis of the principle of ejusdem generis. Going further the Hon'ble Judge therein elucidates that apart from the situation in which the company court can order restoration namely (i) when the company was carrying on business or was in operation at the time of striking off its name there exists an alternative situation. (ii) where it appears "just" to the company court that the name of the company be restored to the register and that the rule of ejusdem generis will not apply because of the presence of the words "or otherwise" between the words thereby providing for the two types of situations. We are in concord with the said ratio of the Hon'ble High Court of the Delhi, more so the grounds for restoration as earlier provided under Section 560(6) has been retained as such without change by the legislature from which the intention of Legislature can be clearly gathered in the present dispensation as well. Further, it is also seen that where litigations are pending and where immovable property rights are involved as held in CP No. 406 of 2009 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as in the instant case too as fact vouch, it is only proper that the name of the company be restore to the Register. This Tribunal is of the view that hence there exists a "just" ground for the Restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register of the ROC.”
The Applicant states that in the light of the settled position of law, it would be just and proper to order restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent.
The Income Tax Department has filed its Counter filed its reply/report as under:-
(i) “That the date of incorporation of the Company is 05.03.2021 and the date of Strike off is 05.12.2022 which in effect reveals that the Company was in existence for almost 21 months i.e. 12 months of F/Y-2021-22 and 09 months of F/Y-2022-23 relevant to the A/Y'S 2022-23 and 2023-24 but the statutory compliance required to be made under Section 10-A of the Companies Act, 2013 (as amended from time to time) read with Rule 23-A of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 (as amended from time to time) in Form INC 20A has not been made within 180 days from the date of incorporation as would be evident from paragraph 4 (vii) and 4 (ix) of the appeal memo along with other non-compliances and no cogent and justifiable reasons have been submitted for such non-compliance.
(ii) That the financial documents annexed along with the appeal do not contain the Directors' report for the relevant assessment year which would reflect an overview of the Company's financial position and performance for the particular financial year and also provide information on the company's performance and future prospects. In the absence of this report, the averment made in the appeal that company is a going concern cannot be substantiated.
(iii) That the database i.e. the ITBA portal of the Department reflects that the Company has filed ITR-U (Updated Return) along with ITR-6 for A/Y-2022-23 declaring total income at Rs. 3,730/- as per the updated return filed u/s 139 (8A) of the Act on 18.04.2023 and has disclosed particular of business as Wholesale cum Retail and nature of business as N.E.C. (09028) and has paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 389/-. Before filing the updated return, the assesse had disclosed total income as Zero.
(iv) In the trading account details in ITR for A/Y-2022-23, the sale of goods is shown at Rs. 1,43,087/-. As per the Balance Sheet, the total shareholder fund is Rs. 1,02,762/-, long term liability on account of trade payable is Rs. 50,883/- and other current liability on account of other payable is Rs. 1,54,269/-. Loan, advance and deposits is Nil.
(v) In the trading account details in ITR for A/Y-2022-23, the sale of goods is shown at Rs. 1,43,087/-. As per the Balance Sheet, the total shareholder fund is Rs. 1,02,762/-, long term liability on account of trade payable is Rs. 50,883/- and other current liability on account of other payable is Rs. 1,54,269/-. Loan, advance and deposits is Nil.
(vi) That neither regular/ scrutiny assessment proceedings nor reassessment proceedings have been initiated against the Company nor any other proceeding is pending, nor any demand is outstanding against the Company in respect of the abovementioned assessment year as on the date of swearing of this affidavit.
(vii) That the department has no objection, in case this Hon'ble Tribunal is of the opinion that the name of the Company deserves to be restored. However, the same should be subject to strict compliance of the necessary statutory requirements under the Companies Act as well as under the Income Tax Act.
(viii) That is the remaining contents of the various other paragraphs of Form No. NCLT-9 in the manner as stated therein need no reply at present from the answering respondent as the contents relate to the proceedings initiated by the ROC culminating in the strike off the Company.
Prayer
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the present Application be allowed and the accompanying Counter/Representation Affidavit filed on behalf of Jurisdictional Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Agra be taken on record otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and grave injustice.”
Both the above reports from ROC as well as the Income Tax Department have been considered in the hearing held on 27.09.23. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the ROC has referred to the report of the ROC in which no such objection has been raised which may be of the nature of any serious statutory violations restricting the restoration of the company and only prayed that the instant appeal may be decided on merit. It has also been found that the appellant company has commenced the business and subscription into the shares of the company has also been made. Default is only with regard to not filing the requisite report in prescribed form in compliance to fulfilling the requirements as mentioned section 248(1)(d). The Ld. Counsel of the Income Tax Department also has no objection if the name of the appellant company is restored as the business of the Company has been running and belated returns are also filed.
As discussed in detail, in our order passed on 05.10.2023 in case of VGK Electric Vehicle Industry Private Limited v/s ROC in CP No.33/ALD/2023, in this case also, we find that the order has been passed by the ROC striking off the company due to default U/s 248(1)(d), for which appeal filed U/s 252(1) against the order of ROC would be maintainable and not the application filed U/s 252(3). However, considering the fact that merely unintentional mentioning of a wrong provision may not disentitle the litigant as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 457/2009 & M.P.Nos. 1, 2, 3/2009 & M.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3/2010; in Nanthagopal v. Union of India., we are inclined to consider the present application U/s 252(1) instead of 252(3), particularly in view of the fact that the present matter in any case has been filed within a period of three years as per the limitation provided U/s 252(1) of the Companies Act, The relevant part of our above mentioned decision in case of VGK Electric Vehicle Industry Private Limited v/s ROC (supra) is reproduced as under:-
“During the hearing, filing of petition U/s 252(3) has been enquired into and clarification has been sought as to why appeal U/s 252(1) has not been filed against the order of ROC notifying the applicant company as dissolved U/s 248 as mentioned in STK-7 dated 15.12.2022 issued by the ROC, which specifically provides for filing of appeal against the order of the ROC U/s 248. However, no satisfactory justification could be given by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Applicant Company for filing of application U/s 252(3) and not filing appeal U/s 252(1) against the order of ROC U/s 248, specifically passed for violation by the Applicant Company as per Section 248(1)(d). We have considered the petition filed by the Applicant Company U/s 252(3), which in our considered opinion ought to have been filed as appeal U/s 252(1). This matter was earlier considered by the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench in Department of Income Tax, through the Income Tax Officer v/s Kalaniketan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and another in Company Appeal No.306/NCLT/AHM/2019 dated 20.01.2021 wherein, it is held as under :-
On perusal of the record, it is found that the appeal is filed under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. While, going through the section 252(3) of the Companies Act, it is found that the instant provision is made when the company is struck of voluntarily on the behest of the Promoter(s)/Director(s), whereas, section 252(1) of the Companies Act, provides that, when the company is struck of by the Registrar of Companies on the failure in filing of statutory returns by the Company. For the sake of brevity, both the provisions are produced here under:
252(1) Any person aggrieved by ah order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248, may file an appeal to the Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Registrar and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the removal of the name of the company from the register of companies is not justified in view of the absence of any of the grounds on which the order was passed by the Registrar, it may order restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies.........
252(3) If a company, or any member or creditor or workman thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under subsection (5) of section 248 may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of its name being struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored, to the Register of Companies.......
In view of the above, the instant application would not lie under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; rather, it would lie under section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. However, while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 457/2009 & M.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3/2009 & M.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3/2010; V. Nanthagopal v. Union of India, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “...Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions held that quoting a wrong provision of law will not dis-entitle the party to the relief...”.
Under such circumstances, the instant application is being treated under section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. In another decision of NCLT, Ahmedabad in case of Pinakin Bhailalbhai Patel, Member of Vrindavan Studios Pvt. Ltd. Versus Registrar of Companies, ROC Bhavan, Opp. Rupal Park Society in Co. Appeal No. 76/NCLT/AHM/2020 dated 11.09.2020, application for restoration of the Company filed U/s 252(3) against the order of ROC U/s 248(1) filed after 3 years, was rejected holding that the application ought to have been filed U/s 252(1). The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under :-
Under such circumstances, when the Company is struck off for non-compliance of the statutory requirement, in that event, the application ought to be filed under section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, however, the Appellant filed this application under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which is applicable when the Company is struck off on the request of the Company by filing an application under section 248(2) of the Act. In that event, if a company, or any member or creditor or workman thereof feels aggrieved by the company having its name struck off from the register of companies, the Tribunal on an application made by the company, member, creditor or workman before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under sub-section (5) of Section 248 but the Company is struck off on the instance of the ROC for non-compliance of statutory returns, then in that event, aggrieved person may file an appeal to the tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the action of the Registrar.
Even if it is assumed, there is misquoting of the section, which is not going to vitiate the case but then even in that case also this application cannot be allowed as this was struck off on the instance ROC from the register of the ROC under section 248 (1) of the Act. In that event, an appeal is to be filed within three years from the date of struck off by the ROC, the Appellant has filed the application after 3 years i.e. on 09.07.2020, whereas, the Company was struck off on 21.06.2017. Therefore, the appeal is barred by limitation as per section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, hence dismissed. No cost.
By following the above decisions of the coordinate bench, and taking into account the provisions of Section 252(1) and 252(3), we are of the considered view that the instant application would not lie under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, rather it would lie under section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. However, taking into account the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanthagopal v. Union of India (Supra), the instant application is considered as being filed under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 as merely unintentional wrong mentioning of a provision should not a ground to discard the matter. It may need to be mentioned that U/s 252(1) any person aggrieved by an order of Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved U/s 248 is entitled to file an appeal and the said appeal is required to be filed within a period of three years from the date of such order.
On the other hand, the provisions of Section 252(3) provide that if a company, or any member or creditor or workman feels aggrieved by the “company having its name struck off from the register of companies”, the Tribunal on an application so made before the expiry of 20 years may consider an application if so satisfied that the company was at the time of its name being struck off was carrying on business or was in operation. Therefore, an application U/s 252(3) is maintainable only in case if the company having its name struck off and in such a situation a limitation period of 20 years has been provided. Even though under the present circumstances as per the present case in hand, the order has been passed by the Registrar, and therefore, it is only the appeal U/s 252(1) which is maintainable and not the application U/s 252(3). However, considering the fact that merely unintentional mentioning of a wrong provision may not disentitle the litigant, we are inclined to consider the present application U/s 252(1) instead of 252(3), particularly in view of the fact that the present matter in any case has been filed within a period of three years as per the limitation provided U/s 252(1) of the Companies Act.”
Considering the facts and circumstances and response from the concerned statutory authorities connected with the functioning of the companies as discussed in aforesaid paras, we find that it is in the interest of justice and also it has been found that the Applicant Company has collected the share subscription amount at the time of formation of the company and also the business has commenced, but inadvertently they could not file the requisite Form 20A as per Section 10A (1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 and Rule 23A of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, and hence, we allow the instant appeal to the extent of directing the ROC, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur to restore the name of the applicant Company on the Register of Companies in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the Register of Companies, changing the status of the appellant Company from “ struck off” to “ Active” and take such further action against the Petitioner Company in accordance with the statutory provisions.
The restoration of the Company’s name will be subject to the payment of the cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) through online payment in www.mca.gov.in under miscellaneous fees by mentioning particular as “Payment of cost for restoration of the company pursuant to orders in CP No.44/ALD/2023” and also to make payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
This Petition is disposed of on the terms directed above. The ROC shall give effect to this order only after perusal of the compliance report of the cost imposed. After due compliance with the above directions the ROC, Uttar Pradesh Kanpur shall publish the order for restoration of the name of the company in the Official Gazette under its office name and seal. The Company is directed to file all the statutory documents including Annual Accounts and Annual Returns along with the prescribed fees and additional fees as ordered by the ROC, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur as applicable under the Companies Act, 2013 within 45 days from the date on which its name is restored on the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. They shall also fulfill all the other relevant statutory compliances, such as under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Income Tax Act, 1961, etc. This order is confined to the violations, which ultimately led to the impugned action of striking off the name of the Company, and it will not come in the way of the Registrar of the Companies, Uttar Pradesh or any other concerned Government Authority to take appropriate action(s) in accordance with law, for any other violations/offences, if any, committed by the petitioner company prior to or during the period the name of the Company remained struck off.
The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties in the matter.
The appellant company is directed to deliver a certified copy of this order with ROC, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Certified copy of the order be issued upon making an application by any concerned party with all requisite formalities.
CP No.44/ALD/2023 stands disposed off accordingly.