Radheshyam Hariprasad Maniyar vs Registrar Of Companies

This Petition filed under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act) seeks restoration of the name of Amrit Life Sciences Private Limited

(hereinafter referred to as the Company), whose name was struck off from the Register of Companies maintained by the Respondent.

The Appellant, a creditor of the Company, submits that Respondent issued public notice in Form STK-7 in the official gazette dated 10/07/2017 by

which the name of Company was struck off from the Register maintained by the Respondent.

In response to the notice the ROC filed his report inter alia submitting therein that the name of the company was struck off after observing due

procedure prescribed under law.

During the hearing this Bench directed the Appellant to serve notice on the Company and the Directors. The Counsel for the Appellant complied

with the same and filed proof of service thereof. However, there was no representation from any of them.

It is submitted that the said Company, even though struck off, never stopped its business operations. During the Financial Year 2017-18 the

Appellant herein advanced a sum of Rs. 53,42,666/- as loan and the same is yet to be received from the Company. In support of the contention the

Appellant enclosed the balance sheet of the Company for the year ending 31/03/2018 wherein the Appellant has been shown as a Creditor under the

heading “Note â€" 5: other current liabilities†â€" advance received from “Om Shanti Corporation†for Rs. 53,42,666/-. The same figure is

reflected in the balance sheet for the year ending 31/03/2019 as well, under the same heading.

On perusal of the balance sheet entries we are satisfied that the Appellant is the creditor of the said Company.

Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides as below:

“Section 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 sub-section(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, order the name of the company to be restored to the register of companies, and the Tribunal may, by

the order, give such other directions and make such provisions as deemed just for placing the company and all other persons 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.â€​

The above provision entitles a Creditor to file an Appeal for the revival of the name of the Company struck off by the Registrar of Companies.

Since the Appellant is the Creditor, this Appeal filed by the Appellant is in terms of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Upon going through the pleadings and on hearing the Counsel for the Appellant, we are satisfied with the reasons shown by the Appellant for

restoration of the name of the Company in the register of companies maintained by the Respondent. We accordingly pass the following order.

ORDER

The Appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest. The impugned order dated 10.07.2017 of RoC-Mumbai striking off the Company’s

name from the Register of Companies is set aside. The prayer for restoration of name of the company in the register of companies is allowed. The

company and all other persons are placed in the same position as nearly as maybe as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the

register of companies. The prayer for “de-freeze/release bank account of the companyâ€​ cannot be granted and the same is rejected. The name of

the Company be restored in the Respondent’s Register of Companies, subject to the following.

i. The Company shall within two months hence file all the pending financial statements and annual and statutory returns with the Respondent as

required under the Act and Rules made thereunder.

ii. The Appellant shall within 30 days deliver a certified copy of the order to the Respondent.

iii. Upon compliance, the Respondent on receipt of the Order shall in his official name and stamp publish the order in the official gazette and restore

the name of the Company in the register of companies forthwith.

iv. The Order however shall not fetter the authority of the ROC to take appropriate action against the Company for any other violation either prior to

10.07.2017 or in the interregnum.

v. Needless to say, failure to comply with any of the above conditions would nullify the effect of this order. No costs.