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: Whether the struck-off company was entitled to restoration of its name in the register of companies under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The company sought restoration principally on the basis of pending litigation and asserted assets, but it had not filed financial statements or annual returns for a long period. The record showed no substantive business activity, the lone balance sheet reflected nil operational revenue, and no reliable material established that the company was carrying on business or otherwise in operation when its name was struck off. The pending disputes could continue through other contesting parties, and restoration cannot be ordered merely to enable litigation in the absence of a proper foundation under the statutory test for restoration.

Conclusion: Restoration was refused, and the challenge to the striking off failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration of a struck-off company is justified only where the company was carrying on business or in operation at the relevant time, or where restoration is otherwise shown to be just and fair; mere pendency of litigation is insufficient.

---