Appeal allowed due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before company name restoration.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra Through his Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Utkarsh Mishra Versus Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra Through his Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Utkarsh Mishra Versus Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, The Principal Commissioner of ... Issues:
1. Appeal against the Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal restoring a company's name in the Register of Companies.
2. Lack of notice served on the company before passing the Impugned Order by the Tribunal.
3. Compliance with Section 252 of the Companies Act regarding restoration of the company's name.
4. Arguments regarding completed assessment for the year 2011-12 and lack of business activity by the company.
5. Lack of opportunity of being heard before passing the Impugned Order.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) restoring the name of a company in the Register of Companies. The appeal was filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act against the NCLT's order dated 11.11.2019. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 Mumbai, seeking restoration of the company's name in the register.

2. One of the key issues raised was the lack of notice served on the company before passing the Impugned Order. The appellant argued that the Impugned Order was passed without serving any notice on the company, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not provide an opportunity for the company to be heard before making the decision.

3. The appellant's counsel highlighted the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, which require the Tribunal to give a reasonable opportunity for representations and being heard to the Registrar, the company, and all concerned persons before passing any order. Rule 37 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 also mandates issuing a notice to the respondent to show cause against the application or petition, accompanied by supporting documents.

4. Another argument presented was regarding the completed assessment for the year 2011-12 and the lack of business activity by the company. The appellant contended that there was no valid reason to revive the struck-off company, as there were no business activities and no employees to manage the affairs. The restoration would impose a burden and penalties on the appellant, who was the ex-director and majority shareholder of the company.

5. The Tribunal found merit in the arguments raised by the appellant, noting that the Impugned Order was passed without giving the company an opportunity to be heard. As per the provisions of the Companies Act and the NCLT Rules, the Tribunal should have provided a chance for the company to present its case before making a decision. Therefore, the Impugned Order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after hearing the parties involved.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal aspects and arguments presented in the judgment, addressing the issues raised in the appeal comprehensively.