Appeal to Restore Company Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence and Prolonged Inactivity

The tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking restoration of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The decision was based on the lack of evidence demonstrating the company's business operations, its prolonged inactivity for 21 years, and the interpretation of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating business activities for restoration and upheld the RoC's striking off action due to the company's failure to comply with statutory requirements and lack of intention to conduct business.

---

---

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.

---