Company name restored in Register after non-compliance; emphasizes accountability, compliance, and restoration of operations.

The Tribunal ordered the restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite being struck off for non-compliance, the company demonstrated operational status through bank accounts and financial activities. The judgment required the company to pay costs, file pending documents, and comply with regulations within specified timelines. The decision emphasized restoring the company while ensuring accountability and adherence to legal obligations for transparency and corporate governance.

---

---

Issues: Restoration of struck off company in Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. Background: The company was incorporated in 1996 but failed to file Annual Returns and Financial Statements since 2010, leading to its name being struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) in 2017.

2. Appellant's Submission: The Appellant's counsel argued that the company was in operation and maintaining bank accounts, proving its active status. They claimed the company was not a shell company and had not engaged in any unauthorized transactions.

3. Decision Basis: Despite the absence of the ROC report, the Tribunal considered the Appellant's submissions and available records. The company had filed Income Tax Returns up to 2019-20, indicating its operational status.

4. Financial Standing: The balance sheet as of 31.03.2020 showed reserves, borrowings, inventories, receivables, and loans, demonstrating the company's financial activity and stability.

5. Judgment: Considering the facts, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies, subject to payment of costs for non-compliance with filing rules. The order included directions for filing pending documents, payment of costs, compliance monitoring, and publication in the official Gazette.

6. Compliance and Future Actions: The company was directed to fulfill specified requirements within set timelines, with the Registrar instructed to change the company's status to 'Active' and publish the order. The judgment clarified that it pertained only to past violations leading to striking off the name and did not prevent further legal actions for other offenses.

7. Conclusion: The Company Appeal was disposed of accordingly, with provision for issuing an urgent certified copy upon compliance. The judgment balanced restoration with accountability, emphasizing compliance with legal obligations to maintain transparency and corporate governance standards.

---