NCLAT upholds NCLT decision dismissing application under Companies Act, 2013. Importance of timely filings highlighted.

The NCLAT affirmed the NCLT's decision to dismiss the application under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, for setting aside the striking off of the company's name by the ROC Coimbatore. The Appellant's failure to respond to show cause notices, establish grounds for restoration, or demonstrate efforts to revive the company led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of timely filings and proactive measures to maintain a company's active status under the Companies Act, 2013.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against the NCLT order dismissing the application under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for setting aside the striking off the name of the company by the ROC Coimbatore due to default in statutory compliances.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the NCLT's order dismissing their application to set aside the striking off of the company's name by the ROC Coimbatore due to non-compliance with filing financial statements and annual returns. The Appellant argued that the delay was due to clerical oversight and not intentional, requesting the restoration of the company's name on the Register of Companies.

2. The NCLAT noted that the ROC Coimbatore initiated action under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, and struck off the company's name as it had been inactive since 1998. The Appellant failed to provide evidence of being active or plans to revive the business, as required under Section 252(3) of the Act.

3. The NCLT observed that the Appellant company did not respond to the show cause notice or apply for dormant company status under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ROC proceeded to strike off the company's name, leading to its dissolution along with other companies for non-compliance.

4. Despite the Appellant's claims of timely preparation and approval of financial statements, the failure to file them for six financial years was acknowledged. The Appellant also admitted to the ROC's actions but attributed the delays to clerical oversights. However, the Appellant failed to demonstrate any efforts to revive the company or obtain necessary approvals.

5. The NCLAT upheld the NCLT's decision, emphasizing the Appellant's lack of response to the show cause notice and failure to establish grounds for restoration. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, as the Appellant did not present a substantial case for interference with the NCLT's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

In conclusion, the NCLAT affirmed the NCLT's decision to dismiss the application, highlighting the Appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of business activity, revival plans, or compliance with statutory requirements. The judgment underscores the importance of timely filings and proactive measures to maintain a company's active status under the Companies Act, 2013.

---