Company name restoration appeal rejected under Companies Act, 2013

The appeal for restoration of a company name in the Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 was filed by MJM Industries Private Limited. Despite facing operational issues and failing to file necessary annual filings, the company's name was struck off without prior notice by the Registrar of Companies. The Petitioner failed to provide supporting records for the appeal, leading the Bench to reject the appeal through CA 95/252/HDB/2017 due to lack of evidence. No costs were awarded, considering the seriousness of the claims made by the Petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal for Restoration of Company Name in Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. The petition was filed by MJM Industries Private Limited seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company had faced operational issues and failed to file ROC Annual filings within the stipulated time, leading to its name being struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) without prior notice.

2. MJM Industries Private Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had its registered office in Hyderabad with an authorized share capital of Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The company's main objects included manufacturing, assembling, trading, and wholesaling various goods, including iron boxes using Liquefied Petroleum Gas as fuel.

3. The ROC had issued notices in various forms, including STK-I and STK-5, on different dates, and published notifications in the Official Gazette regarding the striking off of company names under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite these notices and publications, the Petitioner Company claimed that its name was struck off without prior notice, which the Bench viewed seriously.

4. The Petitioner failed to provide any supporting records for their appeal to the NCLT, especially considering the company was already dissolved. The Bench, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had no choice but to reject the appeal filed by the Petitioner Company through CA 95/252/HDB/2017.

5. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded in the matter. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the appeal and the serious nature of the claims made by the Petitioner regarding the striking off of the company's name without prior notice.

---