Company appeal for name restoration denied due to lack of evidence of ongoing operations.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company failed to comply with statutory requirements by not filing financial statements and annual returns, leading to its strike off. Despite the appellant's claims of business activity, examination of financial statements and bank transactions revealed no evidence of ongoing operations. The Tribunal applied judicial principles requiring proof of business activity for restoration and found no basis to restore the company's name, ultimately dismissing the appeal with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements for filing annual returns and financial statements.
3. Determination of whether the company was carrying on business or in operation at the time of striking off.
4. Examination of financial statements and bank transactions to assess business activity.
5. Application of judicial principles for restoration of a company's name.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of the Company's Name:
This appeal was filed by MPH Infrastructure Private Limited under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies, West Bengal. The company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) due to non-filing of financial statements and annual returns.

2. Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The appellant admitted that the company failed to file the necessary financial statements and annual returns from 2012-13 to 2017-18 due to inadvertent mistakes and lack of knowledge by the person responsible. The ROC struck off the company's name after following the procedure under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, due to non-compliance.

3. Determination of Business Activity:
The appellant claimed that the company was active and in operation, supported by balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. However, the ROC contended that the company had not filed any financial statements or annual returns, leading to the presumption that it was not carrying on any business.

4. Examination of Financial Statements and Bank Transactions:
The Tribunal examined the financial statements from 2012-13 to 2017-18, which showed no revenue from operations and consistent losses. The bank statements did not reflect any business transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the company was not carrying on business or in operation at the time of striking off.

5. Application of Judicial Principles:
The Tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, and the Hon'ble NCLAT, emphasizing that restoration under Section 252(3) requires proof that the company was carrying on business or in operation. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appellant's claim that the company was active or operational.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was no just reason to restore the company's name on the Register of Companies. The company was not active and not carrying on the business for which it was incorporated. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---