2021 (10) TMI 295 - Tri - Companies Law

Successful Appeal Restores Company Name Struck Off under Companies Act

Mahesh Yadav, Director of Datoop Technology Private Limited Versus Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana and Ors.

The appeal against the striking off of a company's name under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 was successful. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ... Seeking restoration of name of the company in the register of companies - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore, it could not be termed as a defunct company as per Section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, which vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company, whose name has been struck off, and such Company is able to demonstrate that it is just to do so, can restore the name of the Company, in the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders, including the Appellant itself, who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in the register maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserve to be restored. Appeal allowed. Issues involved:- Appeal against striking off the name of a company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Incorporation: The appeal was filed by the director of a private limited company against the order striking off the company's name under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was incorporated in 2014 with specific details regarding its authorized share capital and main objects.2. Reason for Striking Off: The Registrar of Companies (ROC) struck off the company's name due to non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns for the financial years 2015 onwards, indicating that the business operations were not in progress. This action was taken in accordance with Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and relevant rules.3. Evidence of Company's Operation: The appellant presented various documents to demonstrate the company's operational status during the period leading to the striking off. These included audited financial statements, a lease deed, bank statements, income tax returns, and GST registration details, indicating financial transactions and compliance activities.4. Legal Grounds for Restoration: Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 allows for the restoration of a company's name if it was in operation at the time of striking off or if deemed just by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant successfully proved that the company was operational, justifying the restoration under Section 252(1).5. Decision and Order: Considering the evidence presented and the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The order declared the striking off of the company's name as illegal, directing the restoration of the name in the Register of Companies upon completion of pending filings, payment of requisite fees, and a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.6. Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the company's name was ordered to be restored in the Register of Companies. The decision highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and the discretion of the Tribunal to restore a company's name based on operational evidence and legal provisions.7. Conclusion: The judgment emphasized the significance of maintaining accurate records, fulfilling statutory obligations, and demonstrating operational status to avoid adverse actions like striking off. It showcased the procedural and legal aspects involved in restoring a company's name after being struck off, ensuring fairness to all stakeholders.