AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal is filed by Ms. Bit Gifting Services Private Limited (for brevity the 'Company') through and by its directors, under Section
252(1) 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/DELHI/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 27.06.2012 with CIN U74140 DL2012 PTC238101, having its registered office situated at 610, DDA,
SFS, Flats Sector- 22, Dwarka-1, New Delhi, West Delhi- 110075, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The Authorized Share Capital of the company is Rs. 1,00,000/- divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid
up share capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/- divided into 10,000/- equity shares of Rs. 10/- each, as per the Master Data Annexed.
The main objects of the company are:
(a) To carry on business of gifting services and solutions to individuals, corporate etc., through online and offline medium.
(b) To provide gifting solutions to retail and business customers globally. The gifting solutions to include gift cards, gift items etc., in
partnership with banks, processors and other third parties.
(c) And other main objects.
The Respondent herein had issued Public notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248/STK-5/2018/2912 dated 18.06.2018. Consequently, Appellant's
name was struck off vide notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated on 08.08.2018 (Company's name appearing at Si. No. 3455)
whereby name of 24280 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 08.08.2018 from the Registrar of Companies.
As per the ROC, Appellant had not filed its Financial Statements and Annual Returns for the period 2012-13 to 2016-17, 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 to 2017-18. The Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2018
reflects Current Assets in form of Cash and Bank Balances of Rs. 31,525/- Expenses in form of Other Expenses of Rs. 3,45,842/- and Income of Rs.
88,400/-. The Income of Rs. 67,985/- as on 31.03.2017 is also reflected.
ii. The copy of Bank Statements of the Company in HDFC Bank for the period 04.04.2015 to 15.10.2016 and 02.04.2018 to 04.05.2018 showing
various transaction details of the company and reflecting closing credit balance of Rs. 18,988.81 as on 04.05.2018.
iii. Copies of Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19. The tax paid by the company for A.Y. 2017-18 is Rs. NIL.
iv. The Copy of Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed on 20.04.2018 with respect to activation of the DIN of the Director of the Appellant
Company.
ROC has filed its reply on 11.12.2019 and stating that they have no objection if the name of company is restored in the Register of Companies,
subject to appellant filing all its pending statutory documents with the Registrar of Companies till date along with the requisite late filing fee as
prescribed under the Companies Act, 2013.
The Income Tax Department has not filed any reply.
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 or 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 that it has been 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. 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 deserve 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 stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.