Restoration of company name requires proof of active business and statutory entitlement, not mere filing references or Registrar silence.

Restoration of a company's name under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires the applicant to plead and prove that the company was in operation, carrying on business, or otherwise entitled to restoration; the appellant failed to do so and restoration was refused. Reliance on balance-sheets, annual returns, or income-tax returns was insufficient where proper filing and supporting foundation before the Tribunal were absent. The Registrar's non-appearance or lack of objection did not relieve the applicant of the statutory burden to establish a case for restoration. The refusal to restore the company's name to the Register of Companies was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company had made out a case for restoration of its name to the Register of Companies under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The application before the Tribunal did not disclose pleaded grounds showing that the company was in operation, carrying on business, or otherwise entitled to restoration. The materials relied on were insufficient to establish that the company was a going concern at the relevant time. Mere reference to balance-sheets, annual returns, or income-tax returns, without proper filing or supporting foundation before the Tribunal, was not enough to satisfy the statutory requirements for restoration. The Registrar's absence or lack of objection did not dispense with the applicant's burden to prove a case under section 252.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish entitlement to restoration of the company's name, and the refusal to restore it was upheld.

---