Company name restored to register after NCLT striking off order overturned under Section 248(1)(c) for business revival

The NCLAT set aside the NCLT order striking off the appellant company from the register under Section 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act. The tribunal held that restoration was just and equitable considering the company's assets and its intention to shift business from iron ore to stone crushing. The restoration would benefit the state exchequer and aid employment generation. The appeal was allowed and the company's name was ordered to be restored to the ROC records.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to strike off company from register of companies under Section 252(3) of Companies Act, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed to challenge the ROC's decision to strike off the company from the register of companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. The company, engaged in screening and crushing iron ore in Odisha, faced restrictions from the Department of Mines & Geology, impacting its business operations significantly.
3. Due to the restrictions, the company failed to file returns regularly, leading to the ROC's decision to strike off the company from the register.
4. The appellant argued that despite the restrictions, the company still held assets and was engaged in business activities, including owning land, iron ore stock, crushers, commercial vehicles, and having business transactions.
5. The appellant also generated income through renting equipment and engaging in buying and selling iron ore, with documented evidence presented to support these claims.
6. The company also had pending litigation and an employee, indicating ongoing business operations and commitments.
7. The appellant sought restoration based on its intention to shift business focus to stone crushing, with applications for necessary permissions and clearances in progress.
8. The Tribunal considered previous judgments where companies with substantial assets were restored despite non-filing of financial statements, emphasizing the importance of commercial viability in restoration decisions.
9. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal found it just and equitable to restore the company to the register of companies, subject to specified compliances.
10. The appellant was directed to pay costs, file annual returns and balance sheets, and adhere to statutory requirements within specified timelines for restoration.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, evidence presented, legal considerations, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the challenge to strike off the company from the register of companies under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

---