Tribunal upholds company name removal for non-compliance with Companies Act, imposes Rs. 10,000 cost.

The tribunal dismissed the petition seeking restoration of a company's name in the register of companies, upholding the respondent's second striking off due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. The tribunal found the company failed to enhance its paid-up capital as mandated by the Companies Act, 1956, despite a prior court order. The tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of meeting statutory obligations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the company's name in the register of companies.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements, including filing of annual returns and enhancement of paid-up capital.
3. Validity of the second striking off of the company's name.
4. Interpretation and application of Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of the Company's Name in the Register of Companies:
The petitioner sought the restoration of its name, Akash Ganga Builders Private Limited, which was struck off from the register of companies. The company was initially struck off in 2008 due to non-filing of statutory returns and non-enhancement of the minimum paid-up capital. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which ordered the restoration of the company's name in 2013, subject to certain conditions, including the payment of costs and filing of statutory documents.

2. Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The petitioner company failed to file its annual returns and balance sheets from 2000 to 2012. Despite the High Court's order in 2013, the company only filed the balance sheet for the year 2013. The paid-up capital as on 31.3.2012 was Rs. 20, which was below the statutory minimum of Rs. 1 lakh. The company increased its paid-up capital to Rs. 1,50,020 only during the year 2012-13, which indicated non-compliance with the statutory requirement for the years 2000-2011.

3. Validity of the Second Striking Off:
The respondent struck off the company's name again in 2015, citing non-enhancement of the minimum paid-up capital and non-compliance with the High Court's order. The petitioner contended that the company could not be struck off twice for the same reason, especially after complying with the High Court's order. However, the respondent argued that the company failed to comply with the statutory requirements and the High Court's directions, justifying the second striking off.

4. Interpretation and Application of Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The tribunal examined Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, which mandate that a private company must enhance its paid-up capital to Rs. 1 lakh within two years from the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000. Failure to do so would result in the company being deemed defunct and its name being struck off. The tribunal found that the High Court's order did not consider these provisions, making the order 'per incuriam' (given in ignorance of the law). The tribunal concluded that the respondent was statutorily obliged to strike off the company's name due to non-compliance with these provisions.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the petition, upholding the respondent's action of striking off the company's name from the register of companies. It imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent within two weeks. The tribunal emphasized that the statutory requirements under Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, were not met, justifying the respondent's action.

---