AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Balance Sheet for the
Financial Year","Revenue from
Operations (in Rs.)
2015-16,Nil
2016-17,Nil
2017-18,Nil
2018-19,Nil
2019-20,Nil
From the above, it is observed that the total demand raised by the Income Tax Department for the Assessment Years from 2008-09 to 2017-18 is",
of Rs. 7,740, which has been paid by the Appellant Company on 12.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 i.e., after the date of striking off its name by RoC.",
That the payment of aforesaid demand cannot be considered as a basis to justify the need of restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in,
the Register of RoC, as by doing so the Appellant Company has only discharged its obligation by paying the aforesaid demand as per mandate of",
Section 250 of Companies Act, 2013. The Contents of Section 250 Companies Act 2013 are reproduced below:",
Effect of company notified as dissolved",
Where a company stands dissolved under section 248, it shall on and from the date mentioned in the notice under sub-section (5) of that",
section cease to operate as a company and the Certificate of Incorporation issued to it shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such,
date except for the purpose of realising the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of,
the company"".",
That the provisions pertaining to restoration of the name of the Company are provided in the Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which,",
inter alia, includes that if a company is carrying out its business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored, this",
Tribunal can order the RoC to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies.,
That the Appellant Company failed to bring anything on record, which could indicate that the Appellant Company was either in operation or was",
doing any significant business at the time when its name was struck off from the Register of Companies by RoC.,
In the current circumstances, it is worthwhile to refer to the Judgement of Honble NCLAT in the matter of Alliance Commodities Private Limited",
Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, Company Appeal (AT) No. 20 of 2019:",
Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Tribunal to order restoration of a Company whose name has been struck off",
from the Register of Companies, if such company, any member or creditor or workman thereof feeling aggrieved by such striking off applies",
before the Tribunal seeking restoration of the struck off company to the Register of Companies before the expiry of twenty years 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….. """,
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.,
The Appeal is accordingly Dismissed.,
Let the copy of the Order be made available to the Parties.,