TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Principal Bench, New Delhi in No.CP-44(ND)/2017 whereby the company petition has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated on 30.4.1997 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The authorised share capital of the company was Rs. 5,00,000/- divided into 50,000/- equity share of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company was Rs. 1,00,000/- divided into 10,000/- equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. 3. The ROC-respondent struck off its name from the register on account of the company being not carrying on any business or in operation under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the appellant -company was struck off vide Official Gazette Notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uck off by following the procedure laid down by Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the record is not traceable in the office of ROC. The notice issued under section 560(5) has been placed on record. 6. Learned NCLT after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 15.3.2018, the relevant portion is as under:- "ROC has raised the serious objections that petitioner company may be put strict proof as to it carrying out business operations since incorporation including submitting of income tax returns, viability of running the company, composition of Board of Directors, shareholders, creditors and their consents thereof for the present application for restoration. Despite opportunity Petitioner Company did not produced Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on its business in its usual course. 10. The appellant stated that due to inadvertence the appellant company has not had the opportunity to justify to the respondents that the name of company should not be struck off. Further the company stated that the ample time has not been provided to the company to present that the company is carrying on business or is in operation. The appellant stated that the company has been regular in preparing annual accounts and also holding its board meetings, general meetings of the shareholders as and when required, maintain proper records, register. The appellant stated that the company has two shareholders and three creditors and they have consented to the restoration of the name of the appellant company i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was not carrying out any business. 14. 1st respondent stated that the notices under Section 560 of the Companies Act,1956 were issued but are not readily traceable as the records of ROC, Delhi and Haryana have been shifted to Manesar but 1st respondent stressed that the notices under Section 560(5) was issued and published in the official gazette vide dated 23.6.20017. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been carrying on the Cycle manufacturing business since its incorporation. The appellant further argued that the company did not receive any show cause notice issued by the respondent and also argued that the occupier of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Even the appellant has also annexed a copy of the same. Further we have noted that it is the practice of the ROC to issue show cause notice to the companies giving them 30 days' time to submit their reply. No reply was submitted by the appellant nor assertion by the appellant has been made for the same. Further we are unable to accept the argument of the appellant that the occupier of the property adjacent to the appellant had somehow colluded with the postman to prevent any correspondence from reaching the appellant. On this point we are of the opinion if there was such things happening and the appellant had some doubt then the appellant should have complained to the Police as well as Postal Authorities. We observe this is an afterthought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. The appellant argued that the company has two shareholders and three creditors and they have consented to the restoration of the name of the appellant company in the Register of Companies maintained by the ROC. The appellant further argued that during the pendency of the application, the appellant has also paid lease rentals to HSID for the land owned by the appellant situated at Industrial shed No.39 in the Industrial Estate, Murthal, Sonipat and the property is still in the name of the appellant. 20. 1st respondent argued that the appellant had not filed any statutory documents i.e. Balance Sheet and Annual Returns since its incorporation which was in contravention of Section 159/220 of the Companies Act, 1956 which compelled 1st Resp....