Krafters Telecom Services Private Limited vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

Sumita Purkayastha, Member (T)

The present appeal is filed by Mr. Jagpreet Singh Sahni, and Mr. Kabir Jaipreet Sahni who are the Directors of Krafters Telecom Services 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 08.08.2018 on 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 11.06.2008 with CIN U32204DL2008PTC179376, having its registered office at 22 First Floor, Rajindra

Park New Delhi 110060 ,within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

The Authorized Share Capital of the company is 5,00,000/- divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and paid up share capital of the

Company is Rs.1,00,000 /- divided into 10,000 Equity Share of Rs. 10/- each as per the Master Data Annexed.

The main objects of the company is to manufacture, sell, purchase, trade, import export and otherwise deal in all kinds of EPBAX systems,

telephone instruments, telecommunication equipment , fax machines or any other components and parts.

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

ROC-DEL/248(5)STK-7/4865 dated 08.08.2018.

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 from 31.03.2013, thereby giving rise to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation.

That the Appellant has submitted that it is a going concern and the Annual Returns and balance sheets could not be filed due to lack of knowledge

of the said provision from the side of the professional.

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. 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017. The Balance Sheet as on

31.03.2017 reflects Current Assets in form of Trade receivables of Rs. 79,148,572/-, Cash and Cash equivalents of Rs 117,685/- -. Revenue from

operation as on 31.03.2017 is Rs. 978,420 /-.

ii. The Copy of the Bank Statements of the company in Dena Bank for the period of April 2014 to June 2019 showing various transaction details of

the company and reflecting closing balance of Rs. 54.80 CR/- and bank statement of Punjab and Sindh Bank for the period of April 2012 to March

2019 showing various transaction details of the company and reflecting closing balance of Rs. 15,209/-

The Registrar of Companies filed its reply dated 11.02.2020 and submitted that no observation/objection has been raised with respect to revival of

the name of the struck off Company however, the Appellant Company shall be directed to file all pending Annual Returns and Balance Sheets with

the Registrar of Companies.

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.