Tribunal orders restoration of company name struck off for non-compliance with Registrar of Companies

The Tribunal granted the Company Petition seeking restoration of a private limited company's name struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) due to non-filing of annual forms. Despite the ROC's power to strike off non-compliant companies, the Tribunal considered the company's unintentional non-compliance, lack of pending investigations, and the absence of opposition from the ROC. In the interest of justice and business continuity, the Tribunal directed the ROC to restore the company's name on the register, subject to specified conditions including filing necessary documents, payment of costs, and prompt business resumption.

---

---

Issues:
Restoration of Company's name on Register maintained by ROC.

Analysis:
The case involves a Company Petition seeking restoration of the name of a private limited company that was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) due to non-filing of annual forms. The petitioner, a Director and Shareholder of the company, filed the petition under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company had been operational since its incorporation in 2008 but failed to file necessary e-Forms on the MCA portal for the financial years 2016-17 to 2018-19, leading to its name being struck off. The ROC issued notices and eventually struck off the company's name, affecting its business operations and stakeholders.

The ROC, in its counter affidavit, did not oppose the restoration of the company's name, subject to payment of costs and compliance with pending statutory returns. The petitioner's representative argued that the non-filing of annual returns was unintentional, and the company had prepared audited financial statements but could not file them due to the strike-off. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, which empower the ROC to strike off companies for non-compliance.

Despite the legality of the ROC's action, the Tribunal took a lenient view, considering the company's bona fide contentions and the impact of the strike-off on its business and stakeholders. The Tribunal noted that the company was a going concern with no pending investigations, the ROC did not oppose the petition, and the restoration would not prejudice any party. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and ease of doing business, directed the ROC to restore the company's name on the register, subject to specified conditions.

The Tribunal ordered the company to file all necessary statutory documents with prescribed fees within 30 days of restoration, pay a specified cost, and resume business operations promptly. The order emphasized compliance with the directions and publication in the official Gazette. It clarified that the restoration order was limited to the violations leading to the strike-off and would not prevent the ROC from taking further actions for any other violations committed by the company. The judgment aimed to balance legal compliance with practical considerations for the benefit of the company and its stakeholders.

---