Appeal to Restore Company Name Dismissed under Companies Act - Lack of Grounds Established

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the appeal to restore the company's name to the Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite the Appellants' arguments regarding inadvertence and lack of competent professionals, the NCLT found insufficient evidence of active business operations or valid reasons for restoration. The NCLT emphasized the lack of revenue generation, compliance history, and ongoing business activities, ultimately rejecting the appeal due to the Appellants' failure to establish grounds for restoration based on the presented evidence.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Restoration of company name to Register of Companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants to restore the name of the company to the Register of Companies. The Appellant claimed that the non-filing of statutory returns was due to inadvertence and lack of competent professionals, with no malicious intent. The Appellant argued that the company had short-term borrowings and tangible assets, justifying the restoration. The Appellant submitted a provisional balance sheet and profit and loss account for a specific period to support their claim. The Appellant also cited judgments of NCLAT to emphasize the importance of restoring the name of a company with immovable property under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. The Respondent No.2, representing the Income Tax Department, highlighted that the company had not filed income tax returns for several years. The company was struck off on 30th June 2017, and the Respondent pointed out that the company reported minimal to no income for certain years. The Respondent presented evidence regarding the company's financial status and compliance history.

3. The NCLT's impugned order considered the appeal and observed that the ROC had not raised significant objections apart from the need for statutory compliance. The NCLT reviewed various documents, including income tax returns, bank statements, and financial statements. The NCLT noted the lack of revenue generation in previous years and the absence of ongoing business operations based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the NCLT dismissed the appeal as the Appellants failed to demonstrate active business operations in the preceding financial years.

4. The Appellant argued that despite having an agreement of sale for immovable property, the NCLT disregarded this evidence by claiming no work had been carried out on the land. The Appellant referenced specific documents, including the balance sheet and the sale agreement, to support their contention that the company should be reinstated due to the immovable property ownership.

5. The NCLT emphasized that the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove ongoing business activities or valid reasons for restoring the company name. The NCLT noted that the ROC had followed due process in striking off the company's name, and the Appellant had not responded to notices or taken steps to rectify the situation. Ultimately, the NCLT rejected the appeal, concluding that the Appellant failed to establish grounds for restoring the company name based on the presented evidence.

---