AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Share Capital,"Amount in
Rs.
Authorised capital,
10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/-each","1,00,000
Total,"1,00,000
Issued, subscribed and fully paid up",
10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each","1,00,000
Total,"1,00,000
date. Other than this there is no adverse noting.,
From the records submitted by the appellants as narrated above it is proved that the company was carrying on the business and it was in operation.,
Hence, the objections raised by ROC is satisfied. The Income Tax Department has not made adverse remarks.",
According to the ROC the object of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act is to give chance to the company and its member to revive the company,
which has been struck off. As per the ROC objections, the restoration be allowed on the rolls of ROC in the interest of justice if the appellants are",
able to prove that at the time of striking of its name it was in operation.,
The appellants have also submitted that in the event of revival and restoration of the name of the company in the Register maintained by the ROC,
respondent, the company shall file all outstanding statutory documents for the period 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 with filing fees and the additional fees, as",
applicable on the date of actual filing along with a certified copy of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal for restoration of the name of the company.,
The Section 252(3) 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:,
i. That the company at the time of its name was struck off was carrying on business.,
ii. Or it was in operation,
iii. Or it is otherwise just that the name of the company be restored on the register.,
The Appellants have submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation since incorporation and therefore could not be termed as defunct,
company as per section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 which vests this",
Tribunal with a discretion where the Company whose name has been struck off and such Company is able to demonstrate that there is a running,
business as on the date when the name was struck off and also keeping in consideration that it is just to do so can restore the name of the Company in,
the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders including the Appellant itself who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in the register,
maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserved to be restored.",
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The Public Notice of Registrar of Companies striking the name of the company is hereby declared illegal and",
set aside. The restoration of the company's name to the Register of Registrar of Companies is ordered subject to its filing of all outstanding documents,
with proper filing fees along with additional fees required under law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other",
charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns, and also subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to",
Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The name of the Appellant 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(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.",
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.,
Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.,