Company Name Restoration Ordered by Tribunal

The Tribunal directed the Registrar of Companies to restore the Company's name in the Register of Companies, subject to specified conditions, including filing overdue returns, publication of notices, producing tax returns and bank statements, and obtaining clearance from the Financial Services Department to operate bank accounts. The decision favored restoration, recognizing the Company's business activities and compliance efforts, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements for the Company's continued operation.

---

---

Issues:
Restoration of name of the Company in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 87A of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.

Analysis:
1. The Company, incorporated in 2008, sought restoration of its name in the Register of Companies due to non-filing of statutory returns and subsequent striking off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in 2017. The Appellant, a Member-cum-Director, emphasized the need for restoration to prevent irreparable loss to the Company and shareholders.

2. The Appellant detailed the Company's efforts to commence a building project, including entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for property purchase. The Appellant stressed the urgency of restoring the Company's name to fulfill financial obligations and continue business operations.

3. The ROC's representation highlighted the Company's non-compliance with statutory returns filing, leading to its striking off. The ROC outlined conditions for restoration, including filing overdue returns, publication notices, producing tax returns, bank statements, and ensuring future compliance.

4. The Tribunal analyzed Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, emphasizing the requirement for the Company to be carrying on business or in operation for restoration. The Appellant's submission of documents and bank transactions indicated business activities, supporting the restoration plea.

5. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the ground for restoration based on justice, finding no objections from the ROC regarding illegal activities or tax evasion. The Appellant's assertion of ongoing business operations and pending financial transactions further justified the restoration of the Company's name.

6. The Tribunal directed the ROC to restore the Company's name, subject to compliance with specified conditions, including filing overdue returns, publication of notices, producing tax returns and bank statements, and obtaining clearance from the Financial Services Department to operate bank accounts.

7. The Tribunal's decision favored restoration, acknowledging the Company's business activities, financial transactions, and compliance efforts. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements and ensuring future compliance for the Company's continued operation.

---