Tribunal reinstates company name, emphasizing compliance with statutory obligations.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deeming the striking off of the company's name as illegal. The company successfully demonstrated its operational status through various documents, leading to the restoration of its name in the Register of Companies. The decision emphasized compliance with statutory obligations and ordered fulfillment of pending filings, fee payments, and a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund for restoration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against striking off the name of the company under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Company's operations and compliance with filing requirements.
3. Evidence presented by the Appellant to demonstrate operational status.
4. Legal grounds for restoring the name of the company under Section 252 of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the order of striking off the company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company, incorporated as a Private Limited Company, challenged the order issued by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, citing non-filing of financial statements and annual returns for multiple financial years as the reason for striking off.

Issue 2: The Respondent, Registrar of Companies, based the striking off decision on the company's failure to file financial statements and annual returns for the years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. This non-compliance led to the presumption that the company was not operational, thereby invoking Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and relevant Rules for removal of names of companies from the register.

Issue 3: The Appellant presented various documents to prove the company's operational status during the period preceding the strike off. These included audited financial statements, bank statements, income tax returns, provident fund certificate, and GST returns. The evidence indicated business activities, financial transactions, and compliance with tax and regulatory requirements, contradicting the presumption of non-operation.

Issue 4: The Tribunal considered the legal grounds for restoring the company's name under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant successfully demonstrated that the company was operational and not defunct, meeting the conditions specified in Section 252(1) for restoration. Therefore, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to restore the company's name in the interest of stakeholders, ordering the name restoration subject to compliance with pending statutory filings and payment obligations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the striking off of the company's name as illegal and setting it aside. The restoration of the company's name to the Register of Companies was ordered upon fulfillment of filing requirements, payment of fees, and a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The decision emphasized compliance with statutory obligations and the company's right to restoration based on operational status and evidence presented.

---