Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 10 NCLT CK 0020

Shaista Khan vs Registrar of Companies

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 8 October 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Member (J) · K.K. Vohra, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal 109/252/N D/2021

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

13 paragraphs · 341 words

K.K. Vohra Member (T)

1.

This Appeal has been filed by Director of the Company named 'M/s Lico Food Products Pvt. Ltd.' (the Company) registered at 198, Tower No 2, Zakir Baghokhla, New Delhi-000000 invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act) for restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC).

2.

The major facts are given below:

Strike off Date

23.06.2007 (Pg 6 of RoC reply).

Audited Financial Statements

of FY 2006-07 and 2005-06

Not submitted

IT retunr

Not submitted

3.

ARoC in its reply dated 09.08.2021, objected to restoration of the name of the Company in view of the fact that the Company had not filed its balance sheets for the Financial years 2006-07 and 2005-06 due to which the Respondent had reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner company was inactive. The representative of the Company who appeared on 04.10.21, admitted that the Company had not prepared the Financials for these two years immediately preceding the date of strike off i.e 23.06.2007.

4.

No report has been filed on behalf of IT Dept but on 04.10.21, Counsel for IT Dept appeared and submitted that the Dept has no objection because there is no outstanding demand against the appellant Company and the case was heard and order was reserved on that day. The Company had not filed any relevant Financial Statements for FYs 2006- 07 and 2005-06 (as per Para 6 of RoC reply) and has not produced any other evidence that it has been a going concern when the name of the Company was struck off.

5.

From the above paras, we observe that the Company seems to be a defunct Company as it had not filed any relevant Financial Statements and has not attached any copy of IT Return. Even after the FY 2006-07, the Company did not prepare and submit its audited financials for few more years. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned conclusion, the prayer is rejected and appeal is dismissed.