Appeal to Restore Company's Name Dismissed: Tribunal Finds Insufficient Evidence of Operations

The appeal against the striking off of the Company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was dismissed by the Tribunal. Despite the Company's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and evidence of its operations during the striking off period, the Tribunal found insufficient proof of the Company being in operation. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Company did not meet the conditions for restoration under Section 252 and, therefore, declined to restore its name on the Register of Companies. The appeal was dismissed without costs awarded to the Company.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against striking off the name of the Company under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and try the appeal.
3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. Evidence of the Company being in operation and carrying on business during the period of striking off.
5. Restoration of the Company's name on the Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Company against the order striking off its name from the register under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company argued that the Registrar did not follow the prescribed procedure and did not send the required notice before publishing the name in the Official Gazette.

2. The Company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and had its registered office within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, allowing the Tribunal to entertain and try the appeal. The appeal was filed by a director of the Company.

3. The Company claimed that it was not informed about the non-filing of returns by the Registrar of Companies until September 2017. The Company argued that it was operational and had submitted various documents to prove its activities during the period of striking off.

4. Despite submitting audited balance sheets, bank statements, purchase orders, sales invoices, and income tax returns, the Company failed to provide convincing evidence of being in operation during the period of striking off. The audited balance sheets showed minimal profits, no employees, and no significant business activities.

5. The Tribunal noted that the Company did not meet the conditions required for restoration under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Registrar of Companies had no objection to restoring the name of the Company if it could prove its business operations. However, based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to restore the Company's name on the Register of Companies.

6. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order to costs, as the Company failed to establish that it was carrying on business or in operation during the period of striking off. The Tribunal found no just reason to restore the Company's name on the Register of Registrar of Companies.

---