Appellate Tribunal Restores Company Name: Criteria Met for Restoration under Companies Act

The Appellate Tribunal overturned the National Company Law Tribunal's decision and ordered the restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies. The Tribunal found that the company was operational, possessed commercial property, and had substantial assets, meeting the criteria for restoration under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant was directed to fulfill necessary requirements, pay costs, and comply with statutory obligations, while the Registrar was authorized to take action for any future non-compliance with filing obligations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the restoration of a company's name in the Register of Companies after it was struck off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-operation for two preceding financial years. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 and whether the company met the criteria for restoration.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013
The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissing the appeal for restoration of the company's name in the Register. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal ignored the conditions under Section 252(2) of the Act, which require the company to be carrying on business, in operation, or just to restore its name.

Issue 2: Company's Operational Status and Property Ownership
The Appellant contended that the company, involved in the automobile business, was in operation at the time of being struck off, evidenced by regular payment of electricity bills. The Appellant also highlighted the possession of commercial property and cited previous cases where restoration was allowed based on immovable property ownership.

Issue 3: Registrar's Justification for Strike-off
The Respondent Registrar of Companies justified the strike-off by stating that the company had not filed financial statements beyond 2015, leading to the belief that it was not operational. Public notices were issued, and dissolution was completed in accordance with the Act's provisions.

Judgment:
After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the Appellate Tribunal found that the company indeed had commercial property, was operational, and had substantial assets. The Tribunal set aside the NCLT's order and directed the restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies. The Appellant was instructed to pay costs, file necessary documents, and comply with statutory requirements. The Registrar was allowed to take further actions for non-compliance with filing obligations.

This judgment clarifies the application of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 concerning the restoration of a company's name in the Register based on operational status and ownership of immovable property.

---