https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285982 The bench dismissed the petition seeking restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies, noting the company did not meet restoration criteria under section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company lacked income, revenue, employee benefits expenditure, or tangible assets, existing only on paper without actual operations. The bench supported the respondent's decision to strike off the company, citing regulatory burden and misuse concerns. No grounds were found to interfere with the government's action in striking off non-compliant companies, including the petitioner's. en-us Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:04:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285982 The bench dismissed the petition seeking restoration of the company's name in the Register of Companies, noting the company did not meet restoration criteria under section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The company lacked income, revenue, employee benefits expenditure, or tangible assets, existing only on paper without actual operations. The bench supported the respondent's decision to strike off the company, citing regulatory burden and misuse concerns. No grounds were found to interfere with the government's action in striking off non-compliant companies, including the petitioner's. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285982