Successful Restoration of Company Name Under Companies Act, 2013

The appeal for restoration of a company's name, previously known as "M/s. Basil Investment & Hospitality Services Limited," under Section 252(1) & (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was successful. The company was struck off by RoC Delhi and Haryana due to defaults in filing Financial Statements & Annual Returns. The appellant presented assets, including land parcels, to support restoration. The Tribunal allowed the appeal subject to certain conditions, including payment of costs, filing outstanding documents, and completing formalities within a week of fulfilling all requirements.

---

---

Issues:
- Restoration of company name in the register maintained by RoC
- Default in statutory compliances leading to striking off the company's name
- Assets held by the company necessitating restoration
- Legal justification for striking off the company's name
- Judgment referencing ownership of land as a significant factor
- Conditions for restoration and consequential effects

Restoration of Company Name:
The appeal sought restoration of the company's name, previously known as "M/s. Basil Investment & Hospitality Services Limited," under Section 252(1) & (3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was struck off by RoC Delhi and Haryana due to defaults in filing Financial Statements & Annual Returns since 31.03.2018. The appellant presented assets, including land parcels and financial documents, to support the restoration.

Default in Statutory Compliances:
The RoC justified the striking off, citing non-operation of the company for two preceding financial years based on non-filing of financial statements. Despite opportunities, the Income Tax Department did not respond. The company's name was included in the list of struck-off companies due to non-compliance.

Assets Necessitating Restoration:
The main assets of the company were land parcels, supported by sale deeds, balance sheets, income tax returns, and bank statements. The appellant argued that these assets warranted the restoration of the company's name in the RoC register.

Legal Justification for Striking Off:
The RoC defended the legality of striking off the company's name, emphasizing compliance requirements and non-operation as grounds for the action taken. The appellant countered by highlighting the significant assets held by the company, particularly the land parcels.

Judgment Referencing Land Ownership:
The judgment referenced a case involving land ownership to support the restoration of the company's name. It emphasized the importance of preventing land wastage or illegal activities due to lack of ownership, drawing parallels to the present case's land assets.

Conditions for Restoration and Consequential Effects:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, subject to payment of costs to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The restoration was contingent on filing outstanding documents, completing formalities, and paying any late fees. The directive to freeze the company's bank accounts was set aside to enable business operations post-restoration, with compliance required within a week of fulfilling all conditions.

---