Company's Name Restoration Petition Denied due to Lack of Business Activity and Statutory Non-Compliance

The petition seeking restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies, which was struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013 for non-compliance with statutory filings, was denied. The court found that the company was not engaged in any business or operations as required by law, having failed to meet various statutory requirements and remaining inactive for a significant period. The Bench concluded that interfering with the Government/ROC's decision to strike off such companies, including the petitioner's, was not warranted, leading to the dismissal of the restoration plea.

---

---

Issues:
Company struck off under Section 248 of Companies Act 2013 for non-compliance with statutory filings - Petition seeking restoration of company's name in Register of Companies - Company not carrying on any business or operation - Justification for strike off by ROC - Petitioner's plea for relief denied.

Analysis:
The Company Petition was filed seeking relief against the respondent to restore the company's name in the Register of Companies due to being struck off under Section 248 of the Companies Act 2013 for failing to file Financial Statements and Annual Returns for three consecutive financial years. The Respondent provided a detailed report explaining the sequence of events leading to the strike off, including issuance of notices and publication in official gazettes and newspapers. The Respondent justified the strike off citing non-compliance with statutory requirements and the company's inactivity for two preceding financial years.

The Bench considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the ROC report and documents. It was established that the company was not engaged in any business or operations as defined under the Companies Act 2013. The company did not generate any income, open a bank account, conduct AGM, file Income Tax Returns, or submit audited balance sheets since its incorporation. These facts confirmed that the company did not meet the criteria for carrying on business or operations, justifying the ROC's action of striking off the company's name.

The Bench emphasized that companies like the petitioner's, which do not engage in any business activities, impose burdens on the system, government, and ROC in terms of compliance and record-keeping. Such companies may also be misused for purposes other than their original incorporation. Considering the lack of justifiable grounds and practical aspects, the Bench concluded that interfering with the Government/ROC's action of striking off numerous companies, including the petitioner's, was unwarranted. Therefore, the petition seeking restoration of the company's name was dismissed.

---