Restoration under Section 252(3) fails where an earlier identical attempt was dismissed and material facts were suppressed.

A restoration application under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was found not maintainable where an earlier identical restoration appeal had already been dismissed for non-prosecution and the applicant suppressed material facts relevant to maintainability. The Tribunal held that the proceeding could not be treated as a fresh application under Order VII Rule 13 or Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The record also reflected the company's prior striking off and related connected proceedings, which reinforced the disclosure deficiencies. The restoration request was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the company under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 was maintainable in view of the prior dismissal of an earlier restoration appeal, the admitted striking off of the company under Section 248(2), and suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The company had been struck off in 2006, when the Companies Act, 1956 was the applicable regime, and the application itself acknowledged striking off under Section 248(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The record also showed that an earlier appeal for the same relief had already been dismissed for non-prosecution. The attempt to treat the present proceeding as a fresh application under Order VII Rule 13 or Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was found inapplicable. The Tribunal further noted suppression of material facts, including the earlier dismissal and the circumstances relating to the company property and pending connected proceedings.

Conclusion: The restoration application was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The company restoration request failed on maintainability and disclosure grounds, and the Tribunal declined to grant revival relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A restoration application under Section 252(3) cannot be entertained as a fresh proceeding when an earlier identical attempt has already been dismissed and the applicant suppresses material facts bearing on maintainability.

---