2019 (8) TMI 1625 - Tri - Companies Law

Company's Name Restoration Petition Granted: Compliance Required for Ongoing Business Activities

Tapan Dubey Versus The Registrar of Companies

Tapan Dubey Versus The Registrar of Companies - TMI Issues:1. Restoration of company name in Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.Analysis:The petition sought restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company's name was struck off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-compliance with filing financial statements and annual returns for four consecutive years. The petitioner, a member of the company, provided details of the company's incorporation, shareholding pattern, and the reasons for non-compliance. The company's main objects, authorized capital, and historical context were presented to establish the grounds for restoration.The petitioner argued that the company remained active and had maintained necessary documentation, attributing the non-filing of documents to pending litigation with Jammu Development Authority. The delay in possession of allotted land, management issues post a key person's demise, and commitments to file outstanding documents upon restoration were highlighted. Reports from the Registrar of Companies and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax were also considered in the proceedings.The Tribunal examined the financial records, income tax returns, bank statements, and land possession details provided by the petitioner. Despite no revenue from operations during the specified years, the company possessed industrial land, indicating ongoing business activities. Both the ROC and the Income Tax Department did not object to the restoration, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the requirements of Section 252(3) were met.Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the company's name was ordered to be restored in the Register of Companies. Specific directions were issued regarding costs, publication of the order, filing of pending documents, compliance with regulations, and actions by the ROC and Income Tax Department. The company was instructed to fulfill these requirements within stipulated timelines, with consequences outlined for non-compliance.In summary, the judgment addressed the legal provisions, factual circumstances, documentary evidence, and regulatory compliance aspects related to the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies, ensuring due process and accountability in the resolution of the matter.