2022 (8) TMI 882 - Tri - Companies Law

Company's Name Restored on Register: Compliance Requirements & Timelines

Rajesh Malviya Versus Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Malviya Versus Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh - TMI Issues:Appeal against striking off the name of a company under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.Analysis:Issue 1: Striking off the name of the CompanyThe appeal was filed against the order of striking off the name of the Company by the Registrar of Companies under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant, a shareholder of the Company, challenged this decision within the limitation period specified by Section 252 of the Act.Issue 2: Company Details and ComplianceThe Company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company with specific details regarding its authorized share capital, registered office, and business objectives. The appellant provided evidence that the Company was operational and doing business during the period leading to the striking off, including financial statements, balance sheets, and relevant certificates.Issue 3: Non-compliance and Striking offThe Registrar of Companies struck off the name of the Company due to non-compliance with filing annual returns and financial statements for over two years. The Respondent ROC issued notices indicating the intention to remove the Company's name from the Register of Companies, leading to the final decision of striking off.Issue 4: Restoration of Company NameThe Tribunal considered the grounds under Section 252 of the Act for restoring the Company's name, focusing on whether the Company was in operation at the time of striking off. Despite insufficient evidence submitted by the Appellant, the Tribunal noted the Company's current liabilities, fixed assets, and relevant certificates, leading to the decision to restore the Company's name to the Register of Companies.Issue 5: Tribunal's DecisionIn light of the circumstances and evidence presented, the Tribunal decided to restore the Company's name subject to fulfilling all outstanding requirements, including filing necessary documents with proper fees, completing formalities, and paying any late fees or charges. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed to be paid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The appeal was allowed, and the Company's name was restored to the Register of the Registrar of Companies.ConclusionThe appeal was allowed and disposed of, with directions for the Appellant to submit a copy of the order to the ROC within 30 days. The registry was instructed to provide copies of the order to the involved parties, concluding the legal judgment on the restoration of the Company's name.