https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86919 The HC held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) failed to follow proper procedure under the second proviso to Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 for reviving a struck-off company. The provision requires the ROC to file an application before the NCLT within three years from the dissolution order if a company was struck off inadvertently or based on incorrect information. In this case, the ROC neither filed such application nor acted within the three-year period from the January 11, 2016 dissolution order. Consequently, the revival of the company was deemed improper, and the court directed the ROC to strike off the company's name from the Register of Companies and take all necessary legal steps. Petition allowed. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:29 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86919 The HC held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) failed to follow proper procedure under the second proviso to Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 for reviving a struck-off company. The provision requires the ROC to file an application before the NCLT within three years from the dissolution order if a company was struck off inadvertently or based on incorrect information. In this case, the ROC neither filed such application nor acted within the three-year period from the January 11, 2016 dissolution order. Consequently, the revival of the company was deemed improper, and the court directed the ROC to strike off the company's name from the Register of Companies and take all necessary legal steps. Petition allowed. Highlights Companies Law Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:29 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86919