Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Company Name Restoration Order with Conditions The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Registrar of Companies register under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the Registrar of Companies register under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The restoration was subject to conditions including filing pending returns, paying costs, and restrictions on asset disposal. Directors disqualified under Section 164 could not be automatically restored. The petitioner had to file an affidavit of compliance within two months and shareholders had to submit an Undertaking regarding financial transactions during demonetization. The RoC retained power to take action for alleged late filings or non-compliance. The Application for restoration was granted with specified terms.
Issues: 1. Application for restoration of company name under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 after strike off by Registrar of Companies. 2. Non-compliance of filing annual returns leading to strike off. 3. Grounds for restoration based on company's continued business operations. 4. Evidence submitted by the petitioner to support the claim of active business.
Issue 1: Application for Restoration The judgment deals with an Application filed under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 by a shareholder seeking restoration of the company's name in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) after it was struck off.
Issue 2: Non-Compliance Leading to Strike Off The Company failed to file its balance sheet and annual returns for the period from 2011-2012, resulting in the RoC initiating proceedings under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and subsequently striking off the company's name from the Register.
Issue 3: Grounds for Restoration The petitioner argued for restoration based on the company's continued business operations, despite non-compliance due to the demise of key staff members responsible for filings. The RoC objected, stating that such reasons cannot excuse statutory duty non-compliance.
Issue 4: Evidence of Active Business The petitioner submitted various documents, including balance sheets, bank statements, invoices, and correspondence with government departments, to prove the company's active business operations for the two years preceding the strike off.
The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, noting the company's active business operations and the importance of its existence for future operations. In light of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal ordered the restoration of the company's name in the RoC register. The restoration was subject to conditions, including filing pending returns, paying costs, and restrictions on asset disposal. The order clarified that directors disqualified under Section 164 could not automatically be restored. The petitioner was required to file an affidavit of compliance within two months, and shareholders had to submit an Undertaking regarding financial transactions during demonetization. Importantly, the order did not limit the RoC's power to take action for alleged late filings or non-compliance under the Companies Act, 2013. Ultimately, the Application for restoration was allowed based on the specified terms.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
