TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal to Restore Company Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence and Prolonged Inactivity</h1> <h3>Swastik Finbuild India Private Limited and Ors. Versus The Registrar of Companies, New Delhi</h3> The tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking restoration of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The decision was ... Seeking restoration of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies - Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- This Bench, is of the view that the only ground on which the Appellant Company is seeking its revival is the Litigations that are pending by or against it. From perusal of the documents placed on record, it is observed that the Company was incorporated in the year 1996 and since then, it has never filed its Financial Statements and Annual Returns. The Report of RoC also confirms that the only balance sheet filed by the company for the FY 2016-17 also depicts 'nil' revenue from its operations. Further, the Income Tax Department has stated that though it has no objection towards the revival of the company, it has no record of its Income or Income Tax Returns in its data base - From perusal of the record of Litigation also, it is observed that there are other parties too on the side of Appellant Company through which the Litigation may continue and be pursued. That the pending litigation against the Appellant Company cannot be the sole ground to seek its revival since the Litigation can still be carried on by the other contesting parties. This Bench is not inclined to interfere with the striking off action taken by the RoC against the Appellant Company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 - appeal dismissed. Issues involved:1. Restoration of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies.2. Compliance with statutory requirements for filing Financial Statements & Annual Returns.3. Litigation pending against the Appellant Company as the sole ground for seeking revival.4. Lack of evidence demonstrating the Appellant Company's business operations.5. Interpretation of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding restoration of struck-off companies.Detailed Analysis:1. The Appellant Company, along with its Ex-Directors, sought restoration in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies due to being struck off for defaults in statutory compliances. The RoC initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, leading to the company's name being struck off the register.2. The Appellant Company failed to file Financial Statements & Annual Returns since its incorporation, which resulted in the striking off action by the RoC. The company claimed to be capable of filing Balance Sheets for the Financial Years from 1996 to 2016-17 but lacked substantial evidence of being in operation.3. The primary ground for seeking revival was the pending litigations involving the Appellant Company. However, the tribunal noted that the company's lack of business activities for 21 years indicated a lack of intention to conduct business, and restoration solely for litigation purposes was not justified.4. Despite claims of owning a plot of land, the Appellant Company did not provide sufficient documentation to support its business activities or demonstrate significant operations. The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating business operations for restoration.5. The tribunal referred to Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, highlighting the requirement for a struck-off company to be carrying on business or in operation for restoration. The judgment emphasized that restoration should not be allowed for companies not abiding by statutory compliances or engaging in unlawful practices.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the RoC's striking off action against the Appellant Company. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of business operations, the company's prolonged inactivity, and the interpretation of Section 252(3) regarding restoration criteria for struck-off companies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
