Vanessa Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Registrar Of Companies, Mumbai

02.06.2023: Heard Mr Milan Negi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Prashant Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been preferred against an order dated 09.03.2023 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’) in CP No.4459/2018.

By the said order the learned NCLT has rejected the application filed under Section 252(1)(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the company i.e. Vanessa Estates Private Ltd which was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as ‘ROC’) by exercising its power under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact that the appellant company was having an agreement for re-development of slum area the learned NCLT ignoring it has not entertained the petition for restoration of the name of the appellant company and dismissed the petition.

Besides hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we have perused the materials available on record. On going through the record it is evident the company was incorporated on 10.02.2014. However, the company did not even bothered to open bank account which is reflected from the impugned order. In such situation an inference can be drawn that the company was not doing any business. We have also perused the STK-5 notice issued by ROC dated 19.07.2018 for striking off the name of company. There is no representation or cause given by the appellant company and finally the learned ROC exercising its power under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 has struck off the name of the company from the register of companies. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant company in the year 2017 had entered into an agreement is not sufficient to draw an inference that the appellant was doing any business. Moreover, it is reflected from the material on record that after incorporation in the year 2014 no financial statement or annual return was filed before the ROC. In such view of the matter we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.