Company name restoration under Section 252(3) requires credible proof of business activity or other just cause, which was absent.

Restoration of a company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 requires credible material showing that the company was carrying on business or was otherwise entitled to revival on just cause. On the facts, the record did not show business activity, statutory filings were missing, and the asserted grounds such as pending disputes, assets, and proposed revival were unsupported by cogent documents. The appellate tribunal also noted that, where a split verdict arose on the factual question and no specific point of law was referred, the matter depended on the restoration facts. The refusal to restore the company's name was therefore upheld and the appeal failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the name of the company deserved restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. (ii) Whether, on a split verdict in the appellate tribunal, the appeal was to be dismissed in the absence of a referred point of law and on the facts shown.

Issue (i): Whether the name of the company deserved restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: Restoration under Section 252(3) requires material showing either that the company was carrying on business or in operation when struck off, or that it is otherwise just that its name be restored. The record showed that the company had not been carrying on business or operations for the relevant period, had not filed statutory returns with the Registrar, and the reasons later advanced for restoration, including pending disputes, assets, and proposed revival, were not supported by cogent documents. The material placed did not establish a sufficient just cause for revival.

Conclusion: The request for restoration was not made out and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, on a split verdict in the appellate tribunal, the appeal was to be dismissed in the absence of a referred point of law and on the facts shown.

Analysis: The members of the earlier bench differed on the factual question whether restoration would be just, and no specific point of law had been framed for reference. In the absence of a governing procedural provision in the appellate tribunal rules, the decision-making approach adopted treated the matter as turning on the factual basis of restoration. As the facts did not justify interference with the NCLT order, the appeal could not succeed.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed and the respondent succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing restoration of the company's name was upheld, and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: For restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, the applicant must place credible material showing business activity or other sufficient just cause; absent such material, the striking off will not be disturbed.

---