AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the company, M/s Uni-Sef Electronics (India) Private Limited (for brevity the ‘Company’), through and along with its
Director, Mr. Vijay Kumar, under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) against the order of striking off the name
of the company passed by the respondent under section 248 (1) of the Act read with Rule 7 of Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from
the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 published on 30.06.2017 vide notification no. ROC-DEL/248(5)/STK-7/2879 by Registrar of Companies, the
respondent herein.
The company is incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the provision of Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of
Delhi and Haryana on 16.02.1984 having CIN U31909DL1984PTC017548.
The company is having registered office at H-317, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060.
Authorized share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/-divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each and issued, subscribed and paid up
share capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/- divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each.
The main objects of the company are:
i. To carry on the business or businesses of manufacturers, importers, exporters, assemblers and dealers in all kinds of electronics and electrical
equipment and components, tape recorders, car cassette players, cassette tapes, radio tapes, television sets, radio tape recorders, VCR calculators,
computers, record changers, transmission players, public address equipment, radio and its parts, tape desk mechanism, micrometers, vedio cassette
recorder, vedio cassettes and allied items.
And other main objects.
As per the notice of non- compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements since
incorporation, the name of the company was struck off in terms of provision of Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 7 and Rule
9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.
The Appellant has submitted that the company was in operation and the business activities were carried out by the company during the period of
striking off but the reporting of such activities through Annual Returns and Financial Statement had not been filed with Registrar of Companies due to
inadvertence on part of the management.
The appellants have stated that no notice under section 248(1) of the Act in the form of STK-1 was received by the Company or any of the
directors or any person on their behalf and hence not afforded any opportunity of being heard before striking of the name of the company.
However, without going into the controversy of the latches in following the due procedure of law by Registrar of Companies before the final act of
striking off the name of the company from the register of companies maintained by Registrar of Companies, for non-filing of statutory documents by
company for the relevant period, through publication of notice on 30.06.2017, the appellants have preferred to prove with documents and records that
the company was in operation and doing business during the period of striking off the name of the company as a better remedy.
The Appellant has brought forward the following facts about it being in operation and functional during the period of striking off:
i. The copy of Bank Statement of company issued by ICICI Bank, from 09.10.2012 to 22.01.2018, reflecting various transactions done by the
company during the period of striking off and having balance of Rs.39,374/- as on 31.03.2017.
ii. The copies of financial statements of the company for the financial years from 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2017. The Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017
reflects fixed assets of Rs. 5,06,550/- and Loss Rs. 13,408/-
iii. The copies of Income Tax Returns filed for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 as NIL returns.
iv. The copy of lease deed, dated 06.08.1985 between Mr. G.S. Jolly as lessor and the appellant company, as lessee situated at Plot No. A-86, Sector
IV, New Okhla Industrial Development Area, Ghaziabad, U.P admeasuring about 416 square meters for the term of ninety-nine years for monthly
lease rental of Rs. 17,056/
v. The copy of property tax receipt, dated 19.11.2014 for the said property situated at Plot No. A-86, Sector IV, New Okhla Industrial Development
Area, Ghaziabad, U.P.
It is further submitted by the Appellants that the failure to file financial statements and annual returns with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of
Delhi and Haryana was due to inadvertence on part of the management and due to lack of professional guidance and as such there was no wilful or
mala-fide motive behind non-filing of the Financial Statements and Annual returns.
The Registrar of Companies has stated that it has no objection if the name of the Company is restored on proving by the Company that it was
carrying on business or was in operation and the Company be also directed to file financial statements up to date with appropriate filing and additional
fees.
The Income Tax Department has submitted in its report that there is no outstanding demand against the Assessee and has no objection if the
company is considered for revival.
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 Registrar of Companies 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 Appellant have submitted evidence in terms of having lease rental rights for the period of ninety-nine years in favour of the appellant company
and that it has been in operation since incorporation and therefore could not be termed as defunct company. 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 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.