Restoration of struck-off company name falls under Section 252(1); member's appeal was maintainable and remitted for merits.

A member seeking restoration of a struck-off company's name is covered by Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, not Section 252(3), because the statutory scheme does not create separate appeal regimes based on whether striking off was involuntary or voluntary. The Tribunal held that a member falls within the class of persons entitled to seek restoration as an aggrieved person against dissolution under Section 248, and the applicable limitation period is three years under Section 252(1). The earlier view treating the matter under Section 252(3) was incorrect, so the dismissal on maintainability and limitation was unsustainable and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal by a member seeking restoration of a company's name after striking off by the Registrar is governed by Section 252(1) or Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and whether the impugned dismissal on maintainability and limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 248 contemplates both involuntary striking off by the Registrar and voluntary striking off by the company, but Section 252 does not create separate appeal regimes on that basis. A member is expressly within the class of persons who may seek restoration, and the provision governing an application by an aggrieved person against dissolution under Section 248 is Section 252(1), which carries a three-year limitation period. The Tribunal held that the earlier view treating the matter as one under Section 252(3) was incorrect, and that the appeal filed by the member was competent under Section 252(1). The impugned finding on limitation and maintainability was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appeal was held maintainable under Section 252(1), the dismissal order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

---