TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c and electronic instruments machines, accessories, spares, tools and consumables; to undertake and participate with machine building industries, engineering, establishments, research and development establishments and software development connected to machine tools both in India and abroad etc. 04. The authorised share capital of the Company is Rs. 2,00,00,000/- divided into 20,00,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10/-each. The Paid up Share Capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/- divided into 10,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10/- each. 05. It is averred that, the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka has struck off the name of the appellant Company from the Register of Companies maintained by it due to defaults in statutory compliances viz., failure to file financial statements & Annual Return which is due from the date of its incorporation till date. 06. It is further averred that the respondent has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 248(1) of the Company Act, 2013, notice as required Section 248(1) of the Company Act, 2013 has not sent and also not given sufficient time to fulfil the condition as mentioned in pursuant to provisions of Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial years nor has made any application u/s 455 of the Act and that the respondent proposes to strike off the name of the Company from the Register of Company as per Section 248 of the Act, unless a cause is shown to the contrary with 30 days from the date of receipt of the STK-1 notices. 14. It is submitted that a consolidated notice in STK-5 in English and Hindi was released in the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 28.04.2017 and in the official Gazette on 20.05.2017 and the same was published in the newspaper in Kannada in Vijay Karnataka (Kannada Edition) and in English in the Times of India on 13.05.2017 and in all the above said notices i.e. STK-1, STK-5 and STK-5A, 30 days' time was given to show cause to the contrary to the action of strike off. 15. It is submitted that since neither cause was shown to either the physical notices or to the website, Gazette and newspaper notices either by the Company or by its Directors, and also since no Balance Sheet or Annual Return was filed by the appellant Company till 21.06.2017 the day on which the list of defaulting Companies were crystallized, the Respondent proceeded to strike of the name of the Company fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t which has been paid by the company as reflected in their letter dated 23rd November 2016 is not appeared in their Balance sheet as on 31/03/2017. There is no revenue from operations since incorporation i.e., from August 2010 to 2017. There are no grounds to order for restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company as no fixed or other substantial assets are available. No materials from the side of Petitioner Company to establish that, it was an ongoing concern at the time when its name was struck off. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the name of the company cannot be restored and the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore had rightly removed the name of the company from the register of companies. Considering all facts and circumstances, the company does not deserve to be revive and hence, the petition is therefore deserved to be dismissed. In the result petition is dismissed." 20. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.4.2018 the appellant has filed the present appeal. 21. The appellant has stated that the NCLT has failed to apply its mind while coming to a finding that the appellant company had no operations, when the appellant had produced sufficient d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CA 21 portal. 29. In the said notice STK-1 that was sent to the Company and to the Directors of the Company, it was inter alia mentioned that the Company is not carrying on any business or operation for three immediately preceding financial years nor has made any application u/s 455 of the Act and that the respondent proposes to strike off the name of the Company from the Register of Company as per Section 248 of the Act, unless a cause is shown to the contrary with 30 days from the date of receipt of the STK-1 notices. 30. It is submitted that a consolidated notice in STK-5 in English and Hindi was released in the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 28.04.2017 and in the official Gazette on 20.05.2017 and the same was published in the newspaper in Kannada in Vijay Karnataka (Kannada Edition) and in English in the Times of India on 13.05.2017 and in all the above said notices i.e. STK-1, STK-5 and STK-5A, 30 days' time was given to show cause to the contrary to the action of strike off. 31. It is submitted that since neither cause was shown to either the physical notices or to the website, Gazette and newspaper notices either by the Company or by its Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the same was also published in the newspaper in Kannada in Vijay Karnataka (Kannada Edition) and in English in the Times of India on 13.05.2017 and in all the above said notices i.e. STK-1, STK-5 and STK-5A, 30 days' time was given to show cause to the contrary to the action of strike off. Learned counsel for Respondent argued that since neither cause was shown to either the physical notices or to the website, Gazette and newspaper notices either by the Company or by its Directors, and also since no Balance Sheet or Annual Return was filed by the appellant Company till 21.06.2017 the day on which the list of defaulting Companies were crystallized, the Respondent proceeded to strike of the name of the Company from the Register of Companies and published a notice in STK-7 in the homepage of the MCA on 17.07.2017. Learned counsel for Respondent further argued in the official Gazette on 29.7.2017 it was stated that from 17.07.2017 names of the companies mentioned therein including the appellant company have been struck off from the Register of Companies as per sec 248(5) of the Act. 35. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We observe that sufficient notice have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39. We further observe that the company was incorporated on 5.8.2010 and the company has not filed the Balance Sheet or the Annual Returns since its incorporation and inspite of notices issued by the ROC, no reply has been filed by the appellant, therefore, ROC struck off the name of the appellant from register of companies. 40. On hearing the parties and perusing the record we observe that the appellant has applied for allotment of land to KIADB in the year 2013 and also deposited Rs. 25 lakhs in 2013 and also Rs. 25 lakh in 2016 and have also deposited first instalment of Rs. 625000/- with the KIADB in 2017. That as per letter of allotment dated 16.12.2016 (Page 104) the last instalment is due by 16.12.2019 which has not arrived so far. As per 4(a) of allotment letter, in case the appellant fails to pay the amount mentioned in para 3(a)(2) of the said letter before the expiry of the time stipulated therein, the offer of allotment stands automatically cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit and 20% of the amount paid by appellant towards premium stands automatically forfeited. The appellant company was allotted 0.50 acres of land in 2016, though it was applied in 2013, to set up ....