Restoration of struck off company name allowed where ongoing business activity and filing lapses were treated as inadvertent omissions.

A company's name may be restored to the register under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 where the record shows continuing business activity and the filing defaults are treated as an inadvertent lapse rather than a basis to deny relief. The Tribunal found that audited balance sheets and financial statements for several years supported ongoing operations, and that the failure to file annual returns and financial statements on time did not outweigh the statutory test of what is just and proper. Restoration was therefore ordered, subject to completion of pending statutory compliances and payment of the directed costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the struck off company's name deserved restoration in the register of companies under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The materials showed that the company had filed audited balance sheets and financial statements for several years and that its financial records reflected continuing business activity. The failure was in not filing annual returns and financial statements in time, and the Tribunal treated that lapse as an oversight rather than a ground to deny restoration. On the facts placed before it, restoration was considered just and proper under the statutory test of just and equitable relief.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was allowed and the company's name was directed to be restored in the register of companies.

Final Conclusion: The struck off company was reinstated, and the applicant was directed to complete pending statutory compliances and pay the ordered cost for restoration formalities.

Ratio Decidendi: A company's name may be restored under section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 where the record shows continuing business activity and the default in statutory filings is found to be an inadvertent lapse, making restoration just and proper.

---