Companies Fresh Start Scheme 2020 benefits denied to company with restoration order outside December 2020 eligibility period

Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking extension of Companies Fresh Start Scheme 2020 (CFSS 2020) benefits. Court held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed when determining eligibility. The scheme provided benefits only to companies whose restoration orders were passed between 1st December 2020 and 31st December 2020. Since appellant's restoration order fell outside this period, they were ineligible for extended CFSS 2020 benefits. Court emphasized that exemption notifications require strict interpretation regarding eligibility criteria and legislative intent behind such schemes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of CFSS 2020 and extended CFSS 2020 to the appellant.
2. Interpretation of the term "requisite fees in accordance with law".
3. Entitlement of benefits under Section 460 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of CFSS 2020 and Extended CFSS 2020 to the Appellant:
The appellant challenged the applicability of the "Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020" (CFSS 2020) and the "extended CFSS 2020" to its case. The CFSS 2020, notified on 30th March 2020, allowed companies to file belated documents without additional fees from 1st April 2020 to 30th September 2020. However, sub clause (ix)(a) of clause 6 of CFSS 2020 excluded companies against which action under section 248 of the Companies Act had already been initiated. Since the appellant's name was struck off on 29th October 2019, it fell within this excluded category and was ineligible for CFSS 2020 benefits.

The extended CFSS 2020, notified on 15th January 2021, applied to companies whose names were restored by NCLT between 1st December 2020 and 31st December 2020. The appellant argued for the substitution of "NCLT" with "Delhi High Court" to claim eligibility. However, the court held that even with this substitution, the appellant did not qualify as its restoration order was dated 11th February 2021, outside the stipulated period.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Requisite Fees in Accordance with Law":
The appellant contended that the term "requisite fees in accordance with law" in the order dated 11th February 2021 implied only the actual prescribed fees and not additional fees as a penalty. The court disagreed, stating that the learned Single Judge's order clearly required payment of requisite fees, which included additional fees as penalties, and there was no specific direction exempting the appellant from such penalties.

3. Entitlement of Benefits under Section 460 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The appellant claimed entitlement to benefits under Section 460 of the Act, which allows for condonation of delays in certain filings. The court found this argument untenable, as the CFSS 2020 and extended CFSS 2020 were themselves notifications issued under Section 460. Since the appellant was already found ineligible under these schemes, it could not seek the same benefits directly under Section 460. The court emphasized that once a party is found ineligible under a specific exemption notification, it cannot claim those benefits through another route.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits of CFSS 2020 or extended CFSS 2020 due to its exclusion under the specific provisions of these schemes. The interpretation of "requisite fees in accordance with law" included penalties, and the appellant's claim under Section 460 was invalid as the benefits were already addressed under the specific schemes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

---