Tribunal orders restoration of company name in Register of Companies, upholds compliance directives

The tribunal ordered the restoration of the appellant company's name in the Register of Companies, subject to compliance with specific directives, including filing pending statutory documents, paying costs, and ensuring no asset disposal until compliance. The ROC's procedural actions were validated, and its authority to enforce compliance was upheld. The appeal was disposed of on these terms, with the tribunal emphasizing the just and equitable nature of the restoration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies.
2. Filing of statutory documents and compliance with regulatory requirements.
3. Payment of costs and compliance with tribunal orders.
4. Authority and procedural compliance by the Registrar of Companies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of the Company's Name in the Register of Companies:
The appellant company sought the tribunal's intervention to restore its name, which was struck off by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company argued that it was active and had submitted financial statements and annual returns, albeit with delays. The tribunal noted that the company had shown prima facie cause for not being dissolved, as it was fulfilling statutory requirements and had not applied for dormant status. The tribunal, satisfying itself with the reasons provided, ordered the restoration of the company's name, directing the ROC to change the company's status from 'Strike off' to 'Active' and take necessary consequential actions, including defreezing the company's bank accounts.

2. Filing of Statutory Documents and Compliance with Regulatory Requirements:
The appellant company admitted to delays in filing financial statements and annual returns for the years 2015-16 but had submitted them by 2018 and 2019. The tribunal directed the company to file all pending statutory documents along with the prescribed fees within 30 days from the date of restoration. Additionally, the shareholders/directors were required to submit an undertaking that the company's accounts were not used for transacting tainted money during demonetization.

3. Payment of Costs and Compliance with Tribunal Orders:
The tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 60,000 on the appellant company, payable to the Central Government's account. The company was directed to provide proof of payment to the ROC within three weeks, failing which the order would lapse. The company's representative was tasked with ensuring compliance with the tribunal's orders. Furthermore, the company was restricted from alienating or disposing of any valuable assets until all compliances were met.

4. Authority and Procedural Compliance by the Registrar of Companies:
The ROC had initiated action against the company under Section 248 due to non-filing of financial statements and annual returns for two consecutive years. Notices were issued and published as required, and the company's name was struck off following due process. The tribunal acknowledged that the ROC's actions were substantiated and within the authority under the Companies Act, 2013. Despite the restoration order, the tribunal clarified that the ROC retained the power to proceed against the company and its directors for any late filings or non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Conclusion:
The tribunal ordered the restoration of the appellant company's name in the Register of Companies, subject to compliance with specific directives, including filing pending statutory documents, paying costs, and ensuring no asset disposal until compliance. The ROC's procedural actions were validated, and its authority to enforce compliance was upheld. The appeal was disposed of on these terms, with the tribunal emphasizing the just and equitable nature of the restoration.

---