Tribunal upholds Registrar's decision to strike off company name under Companies Act

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by M/s Suvidha Polymers Private Limited, upholding the Registrar of Companies' decision to strike off the company's name under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found that the company was not carrying on business or in operation at the time of striking off, aligning with the legislative intent of Section 252(3). Therefore, the name restoration was declined, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating active business operations to maintain registration status.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of name of the Appellant Company in the register of the Registrar of Companies.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Active status of the Appellant Company.
4. Justification for striking off the name of the Appellant Company by the RoC.
5. Interpretation of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant, M/s Suvidha Polymers Private Limited, sought restoration of its name in the RoC register under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. The RoC initiated proceedings under Section 248 and struck off the Appellant Company's name due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically the failure to file Financial Statements & Annual Returns since 31.03.2015.

3. The Appellant presented evidence of its active status, including audited balance sheets showing 'NIL' revenue from operations, income tax returns with 'NIL' income, and bank statements with insignificant entries.

4. The RoC justified the striking off by stating that the Appellant Company was not carrying on any operations for two preceding financial years, as required under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013.

5. Referring to a judgment by the NCLAT, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of demonstrating that the company was carrying on business or in operation at the time of striking off. The Tribunal declined to restore the name of the Appellant Company, as it was not carrying on business or in operation when struck off, aligning with the legislative intent of Section 252(3).

6. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the RoC's decision to strike off the name of the Appellant Company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.

7. The order was issued for the parties involved to obtain a copy for reference and compliance.

---