Tribunal Restores Struck Off Company Name Under Companies Act

The Tribunal allowed the Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, setting aside the NCLT's order dismissing the restoration of the Struck Off Company's name. The Tribunal found that the Appellant Company maintained substantial assets and ongoing business operations, contrary to the Respondent's claims. Conditions were imposed for restoration, including payment of costs, filing of Annual Returns, and compliance with statutory requirements. The RoC retained authority for punitive actions in case of non-compliance. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering a company's assets and operations before striking off its name.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the order of NCLT dismissing the restoration of the name of a Struck Off Company.
- Consideration of assets, business operations, and compliance with statutory requirements by the Appellant Company.
- Failure of NCLT to consider assets and business operations of the Appellant Company.
- Compliance with statutory requirements by the Appellant Company and actions of the Respondent.
- Decision on restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the Register of Companies.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 challenging the order of NCLT dismissing the restoration of the name of the Struck Off Company. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the intact assets and ongoing business operations of the Company, crucial for determining if the Company is carrying on business within the meaning of Section 248 of the Act.

2. The Appellant Company, incorporated in 2011, purchased immovable properties for business purposes. Despite facing challenges in filing Financial Statements and Annual Returns, the Company remained operational, with audited accounts each year. However, the Respondent issued notices under Section 248(1)(c) due to non-filing of statutory returns, leading to the Company's name being listed for striking off.

3. The Appellant argued that they did not receive any notices or an opportunity to be heard before the name strike-off action. Conversely, the Respondent highlighted the non-filing of statutory returns and lack of response to show cause notices, justifying the Company's removal from the Register.

4. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and evidence, found that the Appellant Company maintained substantial assets and ongoing business operations, contrary to the Respondent's claims. The Tribunal concluded that the Company was indeed carrying on business and set aside the NCLT's order, directing the restoration of the Company's name in the Register of Companies.

5. To restore the name, the Tribunal imposed conditions: payment of costs to the RoC, filing of all Annual Returns and Balance Sheets, and compliance with requisite charges/fees. Additionally, the RoC retained the authority to take punitive actions for non-compliance with statutory requirements by the Company and its Directors.

6. The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, emphasizing the importance of considering the Company's assets and operations before striking off its name. The judgment was to be uploaded on the Tribunal's website and sent to the NCLT for further action.

---