Company's Appeal Dismissed, Name Struck Off for Lack of Business Activity

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Cuttack Bench dismissed the appeal under CP (Appeal) No. 134/CTB/2020, upholding the decision to strike off the company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The tribunal found that the company failed to demonstrate active business operations during the default period, leading to the rejection of the application under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The lack of financial transactions and employment details supported the Registrar of Companies' decision to strike off the company's name.

---

---

Issues:
1. Striking off the name of the company under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Application under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 to revoke the order.
3. Evidence presented by the appellant to support the application.
4. Registrar of Companies' response and reasons for striking off the company's name.
5. Analysis of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
6. Decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Cuttack Bench.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the striking off of the company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 due to the company's failure to file statutory returns. The company, a Private Limited Company, was not filing its Balance Sheets and Annual Returns since the financial year ended in 2014-15.

2. The application under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was filed by the Managing Director-cum-Shareholder of the company, seeking to direct the Registrar of Companies, Odisha to revoke the order striking off the company's name. The application was based on the grounds of financial constraints preventing the filing of statutory returns.

3. The appellant presented evidence to support the application, including the Memorandum and Articles of Association, Incorporation Certificate, Company Master Data, Director's Data, and Audited Accounts for the years 2015 to 2018. However, the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that the company was carrying out its business operations during the relevant period.

4. The Registrar of Companies, Odisha, responded by stating that the company had not filed its statutory returns since 2015, leading to the decision to strike off the company's name. The Registrar highlighted that the company did not respond to the Show Cause Notice and was not considered a going concern during the default period.

5. Upon analyzing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the NCLT Cuttack Bench found that the company had not been operating or carrying out business activities during the period when its name was struck off. The lack of financial transactions, employment details, and other key information indicated that the company was not a going concern. The appellant's additional submissions were deemed insufficient to prove the company's active status during the default period.

6. Consequently, the NCLT Cuttack Bench dismissed the appeal under CP (Appeal) No. 134/CTB/2020, upholding the decision to strike off the company's name. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the company's business operations during the default period, leading to the dismissal of the application under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.

---