AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Financial Year,Total Revenue,Net Worth
2016-17,"Rs 5,590979/-","Rs 13,936,547/-
2015-16,"Rs. 17,177,891/-","Rs. 19,756,506/-
2014-15,"Rs. 16,011,670/-4","Rs. 23,253,280/-
2013-14,"Rs. 26,895,791/-","Rs. 33,015,406/-
2012-13,"Rs. 159,663,219/-","Rs. 34,355,916/-
Returns for the financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 which were stated to have been filed on 01.03.2018. Income Tax Department has not raised any",,
specific objection in respect of the restoration of the company. The restoration of the company is clearly in the interest of revenue, as the dues of",,
revenue, if any, could be duly recovered after restoration of the company.",,
The provision pertaining to restoration of the name of the company has been enumerated in Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, which",,
envisages that:-,,
Appeal to Tribunal",,
252.(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under section 248, may file an appeal to the",,
Tribunal within a period of three years from the date of the order of the Registrar and if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the removal of,,
the name of the company from the register of companies is not justified in view of the absence of any of the grounds on which the order was,,
passed by the Registrar, it may order restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies………..",,
(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 name being struck off, carrying on business or it: 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 of/ from the register of companies. (emphasis given),,
A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that any person aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, notifying a company as dissolved under",,
Section 248 is competent to file an appeal to the National Company Law Tribunal. If a company or any member or creditor feels aggrieved, they",,
would also be competent to tile an appeal against the order of the ROC before the expiry of twenty years from the date of publication of order in the,,
official gazette. Sub section 3 of Section 252 contemplates that one of the three conditions are required to be satisfied before exercising jurisdiction to,,
restore company to its original name on the register of the ROC namely:,,
A) That the company at the time of its name was struck off was carrying on business.,,
B) or it was in operation,,
(C) or it is otherwise just that the name of the company be restored on the register.,,
When we apply the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it can be seen from the income tax and sales tax returns and other",,
voluminous documents filed by the appellant that the Company was carrying on business at the time when its name was struck off from the register of,,
companies. The company has also filed its latest audited Balance sheets and accounts up to the financial year ending 31.03.2017. In addition the,,
company has enclosed its three Bank statements. It is thus evidently clear that the company was in operation and was active at the time of struck off.,,
It is pertinent to refer here the case of Vats Association Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ROC reported in (2010) 102SCL 397 (Del), where at the time of striking off",,
the company was flourishing but accounts could not be filed due to secretary's negligence, restoration was ordered. In the present case there are",,
sufficient evidence to show that the company was active and running at the time of struck off.,,
The facts of the case are also similar to the law laid down in the matter of Purushottamdass V. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, (1986) 60",,
CompCas 154 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court under the old Companies Act 1956 has held that:",,
The object of Section 560(6) of the Companies Act is to give a chance to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company",,
which has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, within period of 20 years, and give them an opportunity of carrying on the",,
business only after the company judge is satisfied that such restoration is necessary in the interest of justice""",,
In connection with the non-filing of statutory records, it is pertinent to refer to the findings of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofM ace",,
Platronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ROC, reported in (2010) 104 SCL 277 (Del), wherein it was held that:",,
When the name of the company was struck off after following the prescribed procedure for non-filing of statutory records, even though the",,
contentions of the company that the officials entrusted with responsibility of filing documents had failed to do so cannot be accepted, yet",,
since the company was a running company and the application had been filed in time, the court had power to restore the name of the",,
company.""",,
In the present case also in order to achieve the most satisfactory and fairest solution, the restoration of the running company despite its default is",,
clearly in the interest of justice.,,
As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, it is seen from the documents available on record that the company was carrying on its business and was",,
operative at the time of its name struck off from the register. The assumption of Registrar of Companies that the company was not in operation was,,
clearly erroneous. Besides it is seen that the appeal has been filed within the stipulated period prescribed under Section 252 of the Act. Needless to,,
say that Income Tax Department and ROC have raised no specific objection against the restoration of the Company subject to filing of statutory,,
returns with fees as prescribed. Besides nobody would be prejudiced by the restoration of the name of the Company. On the contrary the restoration,,
is clearly in the interest of the company. Even if the management of the company entrusted with the responsibility of filing of statutory returns had,,
failed to do so, yet since the company is a running company and the application has been filed in time, the Tribunal clearly has the power to restore the",,
name of the company. The lapses on the part of the management in non-filing of annual returns and financial statements in time can be countered by,,
imposing cost. In these factual backgrounds and in the interest of justice the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed subject to payment of,,
cost.,,
Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The notification published in the Official Gazette of India dated 08.07.2017 and the order dated 30.06.2017 in so,,
far as the name of the appellant company shown as at entry No. 17182 bearing CIN No. U70101DL2001PTC109476 is hereby declared illegal and is,,
set aside. The restoration of the company's name to the Register will however be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Prime",,
Minister Relief Fund. The name of the 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(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.",,
Liberty is granted to the respondent to proceed with penal action against the petitioner, if so advised, on account of the company's alleged default",,
in compliance with any provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.",,
The petition is disposed of accordingly.,,
Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.,,