Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 03 NCLT CK 0005

M/s. Sirsa Jute Mills Private Limited And Anr. vs Registrar Of Companies

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 1 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, J · L.N. Gupta, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 504/252/ND Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 352 words

Balance Sheet for

the Financial Year",Income (in Rs.)

2004-05,Nil

2005-06,"63,73,794.22

2006-07,"24,126

2007-08,No Information

from the publication in Official Gazette of notice under Section 248(5). The exercise of such power is properly regulated and depends upon,

satisfaction of the Tribunal that the Company at the time of its name being struck off was carrying on business -10- Company Appeal (AT),

No. 20 of 2019 or in operation or otherwise it is 'just' that the name of company be restored. We do not find ourselves persuaded to agree,

with the proposition canvassed by learned counsel for the Appellant that inspite of Appellant's inability to demonstrate that the Company,

was at the relevant time carrying on business or in operation, the Tribunal had vast powers to order restoration of Company on the ground",

or otherwise"". This term ""or otherwise"" has been judiciously used by the legislature to arm the Tribunal to order restoration of a struck off",

company within the permissible time limit to take care of situations where it would be just and fair to restore company in the interest of,

company and other stakeholders. Such instances can be innumerable. However, this term ""or otherwise"" cannot be interpreted in a manner",

that makes room for arbitrary exercise of power by the Tribunal when there is specific finding that the Company has not been in operation,

or has not been carrying on business in consonance with the objects of the Company. A Shell Company or a Company having assets but,

advancing loans to sister concerns or corporate persons for siphoning of the funds, evading tax or indulging in unlawful business or not",

abiding by the statutory compliances cannot be allowed to invoke this expression ""or otherwise"" which would be a travesty of justice",

besides defeating the very object of the Company """,

12.

In view of the above, this Bench is not inclined to interfere with the striking off action taken by the RoC against the Appellant Company under",

Section 248(5) of the Companies Act 2013.,

13.

The Appeal is accordingly Dismissed.,

14.

Let the copy of the Order be made available to the Parties.,