Appeal to Restore Company Name Dismissed under Companies Act

The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Taru Project Private Limited seeking restoration of its name in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite providing documents, including audited financial statements and plans for real estate projects, the company failed to demonstrate active business operations or sufficient grounds for restoration. The tribunal upheld RoC's decision to strike off the company's name due to a lack of business activity for two consecutive financial years, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in restoration claims.

---

---

Issues:
Restoration of company name in the register maintained by RoC under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Taru Project Private Limited seeking restoration of its name in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company was struck off by RoC due to defaults in statutory compliances, specifically the failure to file financial statements and annual returns since the financial year 2013-14. The appellant claimed to be involved in real estate projects and provided documents to support its claim, including audited financial statements, income tax return acknowledgment, and particulars of agricultural land intended for development projects. However, the RoC argued that the striking off was legal and justified as the company had not been carrying out operations for two consecutive financial years. The Income Tax Department confirmed no outstanding demands or pending proceedings against the company.

Upon review of the submissions and documents, the tribunal found that the company's audited balance sheets showed nil revenue from operations for the relevant years, indicating a lack of business activity. Although the appellant presented plans for real estate development, no concrete evidence of ownership or progress in projects was provided. Additionally, the income tax acknowledgment receipt submitted related to a period after the company's name was struck off, offering no proof of ongoing business activities at the time. Citing a judgment by the Hon'ble NCLAT, the tribunal emphasized the requirement for a struck-off company to demonstrate active business operations or justify restoration on just and fair grounds.

Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish its active operation or business activities during the preceding financial years or provide sufficient grounds for restoration. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the striking off action by RoC under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 was upheld. The tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence to support restoration claims and ensure fairness in such cases.

---