Tribunal orders restoration of struck-off company's name under Companies Act

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for restoration of a struck-off company's name under Section 252 of the Companies Act 2013. Despite the company's failure to file certain documents, the Tribunal found restoration justifiable as the company was actively running and the non-filing was inadvertent. The restoration was subject to fulfilling legal requirements, including payment of costs and late fees. The Tribunal emphasized the company's interest in restoration and set aside the Registrar's striking off order, ordering the company's name to be restored to its original position.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of the name of a struck-off company under Section 252 of the Companies Act 2013.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed seeking restoration of the name of a company struck off by the Registrar of Companies without proper notice. The appellant, the sole director of the company, argued that due to lack of awareness and negligence, the company failed to file annual returns and balance sheets. The company's main assets were lands, and it was seeking restoration based on this. The appellant cited cases where restoration was ordered due to similar circumstances.

The Registrar of Companies contended that the company did not file documents to prove its status as a dormant company and had not conducted business operations, justifying the striking off of its name. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, which allow restoration if the company was carrying on business, in operation, or if restoration is justifiable. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law supporting restoration in cases where the company was active and running.

The Tribunal noted that the company had filed income tax returns for certain financial years but had not filed other statutory documents. It referred to judgments where restoration was granted due to inadvertent non-filing of documents. The Tribunal found that the restoration of the running company, despite defaults in filing, was in the company's interest. It ordered the restoration of the company's name, subject to the deposit of a specified cost and completion of all required formalities and filings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Registrar's order to strike off the company's name. The restoration was subject to fulfilling all legal requirements, including the payment of costs and late fees. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-filing was inadvertent and not willful, thus ordering the restoration of the company's name to its original position.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, case law references, and considerations made by the Tribunal in deciding on the restoration of the struck-off company's name under the Companies Act 2013.

---