Company name restored after shareholder's plea: Compliance & Fresh Start Scheme emphasized

The Tribunal allowed for the restoration of the company's name in the register of companies under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant, a Shareholder and Director, successfully argued for restoration based on the company's intention to resume business activities, ownership of crucial property, and willingness to comply with necessary filings and fees. The Tribunal ordered the company to fulfill specified requirements, pay fines, and ensure compliance with restoration directives, emphasizing the need for adherence to the Companies Fresh Start Scheme post-revival.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of company name in the register of companies under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Shareholder and Director of a company, filed an appeal seeking restoration of the company's name in the register of companies. The company had been struck off by the Registrar of Companies without following due procedure, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.

The appellant argued that the company's name was struck off due to negligence and lack of diligence by its directors in filing statutory returns. However, the appellant expressed readiness to file pending tax returns and complete compliance once the company is restored.

The appellant highlighted that the company, having regained possession of its property, intended to resume its plantation business and commercial activities. The appellant also emphasized the company's inability to benefit from a court order due to the invalidated sale deed, necessitating the company's reactivation.

The Registrar of Companies justified the strike off, citing non-compliance with filing requirements from 2003 to 2016. The RoC contended that due process was followed, including issuing notices to the company and its directors before the strike off.

The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments and evidence, noting the company's ownership of property crucial for business activities. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's plea for restoration and ordered the company to file necessary documents and pay prescribed fees within a specified period.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay a fine, submit declarations, and ensure compliance with the restoration order. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of disqualified directors and emphasized the restoration process for annual returns and financial statements.

The Tribunal's order included provisions for publication in the official gazette and specified that it pertained only to the violations leading to the strike off. The Tribunal directed the appellant to explore the Companies Fresh Start Scheme post-revival.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the company appeal, allowing for restoration of the company's name in the register of companies subject to compliance with specified requirements and directives.

---