Restoration of Media Company Name in Register of Companies under Companies Act, 2013

The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the media company's name in the Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was struck off for non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns due to inadvertent delays. The Registrar of Companies emphasized negligence by the directors but the Tribunal considered the company's operational status and granted restoration. The company was required to pay a fine, submit an undertaking, ensure compliance, and face restrictions on asset disposal until full compliance. The judgment underscored the importance of statutory compliance and accountability while allowing for revival and regulatory oversight.

---

---

Issues:
Restoration of company name in Register of Companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 due to strike off for non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns.

Analysis:
The Appellant, a media company, sought restoration of its name in the Register of Companies after being struck off for non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns. The Appellant admitted inadvertent delays due to clerical oversights but expressed readiness to file outstanding documents. The Registrar of Companies (ROC) issued a report stating non-compliance since 2012, leading to strike off under Section 248(5) of the Act. The ROC emphasized due process and negligence on the part of the directors for the strike off.

The Tribunal considered Section 252(3) which allows restoration if the company was in operation or it is just to restore the name. After reviewing all documents and arguments, the Tribunal ordered restoration of the company's name. The ROC was directed to change the status to 'Active,' re-activate DINs, and allow filing of pending documents. The Appellant was instructed to pay a fine, submit an undertaking, and ensure compliance personally. Restrictions on asset disposal were imposed until full compliance. The Tribunal emphasized that the restoration order did not limit the ROC's power to proceed against the company for any alleged late filings or non-compliances.

The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory compliance and due diligence in maintaining company records. It balanced the need for accountability with the opportunity for revival, ensuring that the Appellant rectifies past errors while allowing for continued regulatory oversight. The detailed order outlined specific steps for restoration, financial obligations, and ongoing responsibilities, emphasizing the Tribunal's commitment to upholding the integrity of corporate governance.

---