Restoration of Company Name in Register: Compliance Order and Cost Imposition

M/s Shree Deepam Infotech Private Limited Versus The Registrar of Companies

M/s Shree Deepam Infotech Private Limited Versus The Registrar of Companies - TMI Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in the Register of Companies due to non-filing of financials and annual returns.
2. Compliance with statutory duties under the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Justification of strike off action by the Registrar of Companies.
4. Direction for restoration of company name by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration of company name in the Register of Companies
The Appellant, a private limited company, sought restoration of its name in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Kochi, due to non-filing of audited financials and annual returns for multiple financial years. The Appellant expressed readiness to file the pending returns along with necessary fees upon restoration.

Issue 2: Compliance with statutory duties
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) justified the strike off action citing non-compliance with filing requirements under the Companies Act, 2013. The ROC detailed the company's failure to file financial statements and annual returns for several years, leading to violation of Sections 92/137 of the Act. The ROC followed due process, issuing notices and publications before striking off the company.

Issue 3: Justification of strike off action
The ROC attributed the strike off to negligence and lack of diligence on the part of the company's directors in meeting statutory obligations. The ROC emphasized that the action was warranted under Section 248 of the Act and was a consequence of the directors' failure to respond to notices and file required documents within stipulated timelines.

Issue 4: Direction for restoration by the Tribunal
After considering arguments and the ROC's report, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The Tribunal directed the company to file all statutory documents with prescribed fees within 30 days of restoration, along with a declaration regarding demonetization period deposits. Additionally, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the Central Government and instructed compliance with the order by the company's representative.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's order encompassed specific directions for compliance, cost payment, and restoration process, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling statutory duties and rectifying non-compliance issues to restore the company's name in the Register of Companies.