Tribunal restores company name struck off by Registrar under Companies Act, 2013

The Tribunal ordered the restoration of a company's name that was struck off by the Registrar of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was directed to file statutory documents, pay a cost of Rs. 50,000, publish a notice in a leading newspaper, and comply with filing requirements within 30 days. The decision aimed to rectify the lapse in filing, place the company, shareholders, and creditors in an equitable position, and restore the company's status in the Register of Companies.

---

---

Issues:
- Restoration of name of a company struck off by the Registrar of Companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was filed by the Appellant Company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking restoration of the name of the company struck off by the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh under Section 248 of the Act.

2. Facts of the Case: The Appellant company, a Private Limited company, was incorporated in 2009 and had authorized share capital of Rs. 1,00,00,000. The Appellants, as ex-directors and shareholders, claimed the company operated in line with its MoA and AoA objectives.

3. Registrar's Actions: The Respondent Registrar stated that due process was followed before striking off the company's name, as notices were sent, and no objections were received. The company failed to file financial statements and returns since 2013-14.

4. Income Tax Compliance: The company had not filed income tax returns for several years but started filing from AY 2016-17 onwards. The company's financial position showed assets and liabilities, with no revenue till 2017.

5. Decision and Justification: The Tribunal observed the company was not a going concern but had land assets and liabilities. It ordered the restoration of the company's name, subject to filing statutory documents and paying a cost of Rs. 50,000. The company was directed to publish a notice in a leading newspaper and the ROC to publish in the Official Gazette.

6. Legal Provision: The Tribunal relied on Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing restoration if the company was carrying on business or if restoration was just. The decision aimed to place the company, shareholders, and creditors in an equitable position.

7. Final Orders: The Registrar was directed to restore the company's name, change its status to 'Active,' and the company was given 30 days to comply with filing requirements. The company had to pay the specified cost for revival and publish notices as directed.

8. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of, and the restoration of the company's name was ordered, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements and publication obligations. The decision aimed to rectify the inadvertent lapse in filing and restore the company's status in the Register of Companies.

---