Tribunal Restores Company Name After Appeal: Compliance, Costs, and Stakeholders' Interests Upheld

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the striking off of the company's name under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite default in filing documents, evidence of the company's business activities during the relevant period was provided, leading to restoration. The appellant's lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before striking off were considered, and the Tribunal ordered the company's name to be restored in the Registrar of Companies. Compliance with filing requirements, payment of costs, and completion of formalities were mandated for restoration, emphasizing the importance of stakeholders' interests.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against striking off the name of the company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Evidence of company's operation and business activities during the relevant period.
3. Lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before striking off the name of the company.
4. Default in filing documents with the Registrar of Companies.
5. Restoration of the company's name on the register.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of striking off the name of the company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant company, a private limited company, was incorporated under the name VD Intellisys Technologies Private Limited. The Registrar of Companies issued a notice stating the company had not been carrying on any business for two preceding financial years, leading to the striking off of the company's name.

2. The appellant provided evidence of its business activities during the relevant period, including audited financial statements, bank statements, and income tax returns for the financial years 2016-2019. This evidence demonstrated that the company was operational and engaged in business activities, contradicting the grounds for striking off its name.

3. The appellant claimed they were not served a notice under section 248(5) of the Act and were not given an opportunity to be heard before the name of the company was struck off. This lack of notice and opportunity to represent their case led to the failure to file necessary documents within the stipulated period.

4. The appellant admitted to the default in filing documents with the Registrar of Companies due to professional oversight and inadvertent reasons. However, they emphasized the operational status of the company during the striking off period and sought restoration based on the evidence provided.

5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence presented and the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowed the appeal. The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Registrar of Companies, subject to the filing of all outstanding documents with proper fees, payment of costs, and completion of formalities. The restoration was deemed necessary in the interest of stakeholders, including the appellant, and the company's name was to be treated as if it had not been struck off.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing each aspect comprehensively while maintaining the key legal terminology and details from the original text.

---