TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Company restored under Section 252 so buyers can receive sale deeds and interests of public are protected</h1> <h3>Dhanpat Raj Sethia Secretary of Dwarka Enclave Owners Society Versus Asheerbad Constructions Co Pvt Ltd & Ors</h3> The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT order refusing restoration of the struck-off company. It held that restoration of Respondent No.1's ... Seeking restoration of the name of the struck off company in the register of companies - if the name of Respondent No.1 company is not restored to the register of companies, then who shall execute the sale deeds in favour of home buyers as well as commercial space buyers, allotted by Respondent No.1 company? - HELD THAT:- It is necessary to restore the name of the company to the register of ROC, so that if an order is passed in favour of the appellants in pending litigation before the High Court, the company may be able to execute the sale deeds. The fact that there is only one director, we leave it open for the shareholders to appoint another one and in their failure to do so, the ROC may take steps to do the needful. We cannot leave the purchasers in lurch and thus the restoration of the company is just and essential and in public interest. It is just and equitable to restore the name of the Respondent No.1 company to the record of ROC - the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Ld. NCLT set aside and it is directed that the ROC concerned to restore the name of the company to the Register of Companies - appeal disposed off. Appeal under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 challenged the NCLT Guwahati order refusing restoration of M/s Asheerbad Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd., which had been struck off under Section 248(1) and (5) for long non-filing of financial statements and annual returns since 2002-03. The appellant contended that the company had allotted residential and commercial units to buyers and only the company could execute the necessary sale deeds. Parallel litigation before the High Court had earlier resulted in stay and status quo orders affecting execution of such deeds. The Appellate Tribunal framed the 'moot question' as who would execute sale deeds for home and commercial space buyers if the company's name remained struck off. Holding that 'we cannot leave the purchasers in lurch' and that restoration was 'just and essential and in public interest', it found it 'just and equitable to restore' the company's name. The ROC was directed to restore the company; the company must file all pending annual returns and balance sheets within four weeks and pay requisite fees, with liberty to appoint another director or for ROC to act if shareholders fail.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
