Appeal Granted to Restore Private Limited Company Name: Compliance and Costs Required

The National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur allowed the appeal for the restoration of a Private Limited Company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The tribunal considered the pending litigations and potential adverse effects on stakeholders, ordering the restoration in the interest of stakeholders. The company and directors were directed to file outstanding documents with fees, comply with formalities, and pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Liabilities determined by authorities were to be addressed as per laws, with the restoration treated as if the name had never been struck off.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
The appeal before the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur involved two shareholders seeking the restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies. The company, a Private Limited Company, had its name struck off due to non-compliance with the Companies Act, 2013. The shareholders contended that the default in compliance was since 1995, citing disputes among shareholders as a reason. They highlighted pending litigations against the company, its directors, and shareholders, emphasizing the impact of striking off the company's name on their continuity. The shareholders also pointed out the non-compliance of the company's directors with the High Court's order regarding filing statutory returns. The Registrar of Companies acknowledged the court order to restore the company but emphasized the need for filing pending financial statements and annual returns.

The tribunal considered Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which provides discretion to restore a company's name if it was carrying on business, in operation, or if restoration is deemed just. In this case, the tribunal noted the pending litigations and the potential adverse effects on stakeholders if the company's name remained struck off. Therefore, in the interest of stakeholders, including the appellants seeking restoration, the tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The company and its directors were directed to file all outstanding documents with proper fees, including additional fees, and comply with all formalities. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, with the directors being jointly/severally liable if the company failed to pay. Any liabilities determined by authorities, such as the Income Tax Department, were to be addressed according to applicable laws.

Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the striking off of the company's name and ordering its restoration in the Register of Companies. The restoration was to be treated as if the name had never been struck off, in accordance with Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The order was to be served to the concerned parties for compliance.

---