2020 (10) TMI 1318 - Tri - Companies Law

Company Name Restored in Register under Companies Act 2013 due to Non-filing

The appeal (CA-599 of 2020) sought restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act 2013 due to ... Striking off the name of company from Register of Companies - non-filing of annual returns and Balance Sheet - section 248 (5) of the Companies Act 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is submitted that an amount of 5 crores has been paid to respondent no. 6 and the land which is in possession of the company is to be developed and the flats are to be delivered to the home buyers. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the application. The RoC concerned is directed to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies subject to filling of all the pending annual returns and balance sheets. The company is directed to make the compliance with the provisions of the companies Act by filing the pending annual returns and balance sheets for the period w.e.f 2014 onwards with the RoC within 4 weeks from the date of this order and the RoC shall restore the name of the company to the Register of Companies - A fine of ₹ 20,000/- is imposed on the company, which shall be reimbursed to the Office of the RoC for incurring the expenses for the restoration of the name of the company to the Register of Companies. Appeal allowed. Issues: Restoration of company name in Register of Companies under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act 2013 due to non-filing of annual returns and balance sheets.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal (CA-599 of 2020) where the company's name was struck off from the Register of Companies under section 248(5) of the Companies Act 2013 due to non-filing of annual returns and balance sheets. The counsel for the applicant highlighted that the company was incorporated in 2012, and until 2014, the necessary filings were made. However, the company failed to file subsequent returns, leading to its name being struck off in 2018. Respondent no. 4 mentioned a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) signed in 2014 with respondent no. 6, emphasizing the inability of the company to conduct business post-strike off. An amount of 5 crores was paid to respondent no. 6 for land development and flat delivery to home buyers. Considering the circumstances, the tribunal inclined to allow the application for restoration.The judgment directs the concerned Registrar of Companies (RoC) to reinstate the company's name in the Register of Companies upon submission of pending annual returns and balance sheets. The company is mandated to comply with the Companies Act by filing outstanding returns from 2014 onwards within four weeks. A fine of Rs. 20,000 is imposed on the company, to be reimbursed to the RoC for restoration expenses. Additionally, the company must submit an affidavit to the RoC confirming non-use of company accounts for depositing tainted money during demonetization. Consequently, the appeal (no. 1196 of 2018) is allowed, ensuring the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies.