Appeal dismissed for company with invalid financial docs. Registrar's procedures followed, no restoration justified.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the company was not operational as claimed and that the financial documents presented were invalid. It was found that the procedural requirements for striking off the company were followed by the Registrar of Companies. Due to ongoing disputes between directors and the lack of valid financial documentation, the tribunal concluded that there was no justifiable reason to restore the company's name, as it could lead to further conflicts and legal issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the company was operational or carrying on business at the time of its name being struck off.
2. Whether the balance sheets and other financial documents submitted by the appellant were valid and substantiated.
3. Whether the procedural requirements under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 were followed by the Registrar of Companies.
4. Whether it was "just" to restore the name of the company considering the disputes between the directors and other relevant factors.

Summary:

1. Operational Status of the Company:
The appellant claimed that the company was operational, citing balance sheets prepared by a Chartered Accountant. However, the NCLT found that the company had not filed financial statements since the financial year ending 31.03.2015. The respondent (another director with 50% shareholding) contended that the company was not in operation prior to the striking off. The tribunal noted the absence of trade receivables, payables, and fixed assets in the balance sheets for the relevant period, concluding that the company was not operational.

2. Validity of Financial Documents:
The appellant's balance sheets were challenged by the respondent, who argued they were prepared unilaterally and without board approval. The tribunal found that the balance sheets were not signed by both directors, lacked directors' reports, and were not approved in any board meeting. The tribunal deemed these documents as fabricated and not legally valid.

3. Procedural Requirements Under Section 248:
The appellant did not dispute that the procedural requirements under Section 248 were followed. The Registrar of Companies issued notices in Form STK-1, STK-5, and STK-7, which were not responded to by the company. The tribunal noted that the appellant did not raise any procedural issues and filed the appeal under Section 252(3), not Section 252(1), indicating no procedural lapse by the Registrar.

4. Justness of Restoring the Company:
The tribunal considered the ongoing disputes between the two directors, which created a deadlock in the company's operations. Given that one director opposed the restoration and the balance sheets were deemed invalid, the tribunal found no justifiable reason to restore the company's name. The tribunal also highlighted that restoring the company would likely lead to further disputes and litigation.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the company was operational or that it was just to restore the company's name. The procedural requirements for striking off the company were followed, and the financial documents presented were not substantiated.

---