Company Name Restored in Register after Strike Off: Compliance & Fees Required

The Tribunal ordered the restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies under the Companies Act, 2013, following strike off due to non-filing of financial statements and annual returns. The company was directed to file statutory documents with prescribed fees within 30 days and pay a compliance cost of Rs. 50,000. The restoration did not reinstate disqualified directors' DINs but allowed filing of Annual Returns and Financial Statements. Non-compliance risked nullifying the restoration. The order emphasized post-compliance gazette publication and warned of potential legal actions for prior or ongoing violations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in Register of Companies under Companies Act, 2013 due to strike off.
2. Non-filing of financial statements and annual returns leading to strike off action.
3. Compliance with statutory duties by directors.
4. Tribunal's authority to order restoration of company name.
5. Cost implications and compliance requirements for restoration.

Analysis:
1. The Company Appeal sought restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies after being struck off under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant company, engaged in skin care services, faced strike off due to non-filing of financial statements and annual returns for consecutive years, despite approval by shareholders at Annual General Meetings within prescribed timelines.

2. The Registrar of Companies (ROC) justified the strike off action citing violations of Sections 92/137 of the Companies Act, 2013, and meticulous adherence to due process. Despite multiple notices and publications, the company failed to respond or rectify the non-compliance, leading to the final strike off in October 2019. The ROC attributed negligence and lack of diligence on the part of directors for the company's strike off.

3. The Tribunal, after considering arguments and reports, found merit in the appeal and ordered restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The directive included filing of statutory documents with prescribed fees within 30 days, along with a declaration regarding demonetization period deposits. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed for compliance, emphasizing the importance of timely and complete adherence to statutory requirements.

4. Notably, the Tribunal's order specified that restoration did not extend to reactivating disqualified directors' DINs. However, the Registrar was directed to allow filing of Annual Returns and Financial Statements for restoration purposes. The company's representative was tasked with ensuring compliance with the order, with non-compliance risking lapse of the restoration directive.

5. The Tribunal's order emphasized publication in the official gazette post-compliance, with a reminder that the restoration order did not shield the company from further legal actions for any prior or ongoing violations. The judgment, dated September 23, 2020, concluded the disposal of Company Appeal No. CA/50/KOB/2020, outlining detailed compliance requirements and consequences for non-adherence.

---