Restoration of struck-off company name allowed where appeal was timely and revival was just and equitable.
A shareholder's application for restoration of a struck-off company's name under section 252(3) was treated as competent and within limitation because the company was struck off on 08.02.2022 and the appeal was filed on 23.06.2022. The Tribunal also found, on the material before it, that the company had been operating as a going concern and that revival was just and equitable despite defaults in filing financial statements and annual returns. Restoration of the company's name was therefore allowed subject to compliance directions, including filing pending statutory documents and payment of costs.
Issues: (i) Whether the shareholder's appeal for restoration of the company's name under section 252(3) was maintainable and within limitation. (ii) Whether the company's name ought to be restored in view of the material showing business activity and the failure to file statutory returns.
Issue (i): Whether the shareholder's appeal for restoration of the company's name under section 252(3) was maintainable and within limitation.
Analysis: The appeal was filed by a shareholder of the struck-off company, and the record showed that the company was struck off on 08.02.2022 while the appeal was instituted on 23.06.2022. On those facts, the filing was treated as competent and within the prescribed time.
Conclusion: The appeal was held to be maintainable and within limitation.
Issue (ii): Whether the company's name ought to be restored in view of the material showing business activity and the failure to file statutory returns.
Analysis: The Tribunal considered the company's incorporation details, the plea that it was operating as a going concern, and the explanation that the default in filing financial statements and annual returns was unintentional. It concluded that, on the material before it, restoration of the company's name in the register was just and equitable, but subject to compliance directions including filing of pending statutory documents and payment of costs.
Conclusion: Restoration of the company's name was allowed conditionally, with consequential directions for compliance and payment of costs.
Final Conclusion: The company's name was directed to be revived in the register, subject to statutory compliance and ancillary conditions, and the proceeding was disposed of accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: In an application for restoration of a struck-off company, the Tribunal may restore the name where the appeal is competent and the record discloses a just and equitable basis for revival, while imposing conditions to secure compliance with statutory filing obligations.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
