Case Remitted for Re-hearing with Opportunity to Amend Petition and Submit Evidence

The NCLAT remitted the case back to the NCLT for re-hearing, allowing the appellants to amend their petition and provide evidence of the company's operational status and reasons for restoring its name. The NCLT was directed to allow the submission of additional documents and conduct a fresh hearing for both parties. The matter was restored to the NCLT's file, with parties required to appear before the NCLT on 8th January 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements and filing of documents.
3. Proof of the company's operational status at the time of striking off.
4. Justification for restoring the company's name.

Detailed Analysis:

Restoration of the Company's Name:
The Appellant No. 1, a company, filed an application under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of its name in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), NCT of Delhi & Haryana. The company's name was struck off by the ROC on 31st May 2007, as notified in the Gazette dated 23rd June 2007. The company argued that it had been operational since its incorporation in 1956 and had been regularly complying with statutory requirements until 2002 when its operations were affected due to market changes.

Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The ROC contended that the company had last filed its balance sheet on 31st March 1999 and had not submitted statutory documents, including Annual Returns and Balance Sheets, since then. This non-compliance led to the belief that the company was not operational, resulting in its name being struck off. The company, however, claimed that it was unable to file documents due to being short-staffed and lacking professional help.

Proof of the Company's Operational Status:
The NCLT found that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to prove its operational status at the time of striking off. The company failed to produce statutory documents or Income Tax Returns for the years 2005 to 2014. The NCLT concluded that the company was not operational since 2002 and had not filed necessary documents, leading to the ROC's decision to strike off its name.

Justification for Restoring the Company's Name:
The appellants argued that the company continued to be in operation and possessed valuable immovable property worth approximately Rs. 140 Crores. They provided additional documents, including minutes of Annual General Meetings, audited Financial Statements, and evidence of property tax payments, to support their claim. The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to submit these additional documents to the NCLT for consideration.

Judgment and Order:
The NCLAT remitted the matter back to the NCLT for re-hearing, allowing the appellants to amend their petition to include pleadings regarding the company's operational status and just reasons for restoring its name. The NCLT was directed to give the appellants an opportunity to file additional documents and provide a fresh hearing to both parties. The original petition was restored to the file of the NCLT, and parties were instructed to appear before the NCLT on 8th January 2019.

---