AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,2016-17,2017-18,2018-19
Reserves and Surplus,2615901.40,"27,28,966.05","23,53,421.95
Cash in hand,"50,602.61","1,50,002.61","42,602.61
Bank Balance,"1,068,206.50","14,03,486.08","1,681,928.56
Other income,"9,77,574","5,86,022","4,36,834
Profit /Loss,"53,051.89-Profit","1,13,064.55 â€" Profit","3,43,213.50- Loss
b) The appellants have relied upon the following cases:,,,
i. Appeal (AT) No. 76 of 2019 decided on 29.05.2019 of Hon'ble NCLAT, Chandrashekar Muruga Vs. The Registrar of Companies, Chennai",,,
NCLT,",,,
ii. Appeal NO. 1225/ KB/ 2018 decided on 06.09.2019, NCLT Kolkata Bench Sri Parmeshwar and Maa Durga Dwellers Private Limited Vs.",,,
ROC, Bihar.",,,
The Income Tax Department has not filed their report. The appellant company has duly filed income tax return for the financial years 2017-18,",,,
2018-19 and 2019-20 which has been annexed.,,,
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 ot the company be restored on the register.,,,
The Appellant have submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation during the period of striking off and therefore could not be termed,,,
as defunct company. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252 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 off 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 allowed and disposed off accordingly.,,,
Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.,,,