Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 01 NCLT CK 0029

Sky Vision Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs Registrar Of Companies

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 25 January 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ina Malhotara, J · Deepa Krishna, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 1006 /252/ND Of 2018

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

29 paragraphs · 541 words
1.

This Appeal has been filed by Sky Vision Promoters Private Limited CIN: U452011DL2006PTC14856, invoking the provision of section 252 of the

Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the appellant company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi

and Haryana.

2.

As per the averments Sky Vision Promoters Private Limited was incorporated on 27.02.2006 and has its registered office at WZ-159, Gali No. 3,

Tihar Village, New Delhi-110064 within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The main object of the company is to carry on the business of Real Estate.

3.

A sweeping action was initiated by the RoC at the instance of MCA in striking of the names of several Companies who had failed to file their

Statutory Returns. The appellant had failed to file its Annual Returns and Financial Statements after Financial Year Ending 31.03.2012 thereby giving

rise to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation. Consequently, its name was struck off by the Respondent from the Register

of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, upon taking steps in accordance with law and issuing a notification in the Official

Gazette. The names of the affected companies were posted on its website.

4.

The appellant company admits its default in carrying out the statutory compliances but submits that the same was due to lack of professional

guidance, inadvertence & oversight.

5.

In order to corroborate its business operation the petitioner has placed before us the following evidence:

I. Copy of Audited Balance Sheet of the appellant company reflecting Revenue from Operation for the years ending 31st March 2016 & 2017 as Rs.

1,10,350/-as Rs.1,75,600/- . It also has Inventories, of Rs.3,35,85,748/ - as well as Current Liabilities besides Cash & Cash equivalents.

II. Copy of ITR filed prior to impugned action.

III. Copy of Bank Statement issued by I-IDFC Bank showing various business transactions. It has a closing balance of Rs.5,64,300/-.

in exceptional circumstances that Courts should refuse restoration where the company has been struck off for its failure to file annual return as that

would be excessive or inappropriate penalty for that oversight.

9.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The restoration of the petitioner

company's name in the Register will be subject to their filing all outstanding documents for the defaulting years as required by law and completion of

all formalities, including payment of any late fee or other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns. The name

of the petitioner company shall then stand restored in the Register of the Registrar of Companies (RoC), as if its name of the company had not been

struck off.

10.

The direction for freezing the Bank Account(s) of the appellant company, if on this ground, shall consequently be also set aside immediately to

enable the company carry out its business operation. Compliance of this order for restoration shall be made by the respondent with all its consequential

effects within one week of compliance by the appellant.

11.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

12 Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.