2019 (6) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as a result of action under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Respondent - 'Registrar of Companies' for failure on the part of Appellant to file its annual returns and balance sheets since incorporation. The Appellant filed C.A. No. 801(A)/252/2018 under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a direction to Registrar of Companies, Chennai (for short 'ROC') to restore the Company in the Register of Companies, which came to be dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 26th June, 2018 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). The reasons for dismissal of the Application have been incorporated in para 5 of the imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal failed to appreciate the fact that due to pending litigation the land owned by the Appellant Company could not be utilized for development and commercial activities as per its object clause. According to Appellant, the Company had temporarily stopped carrying on business but it has been continuously in operation since 1983 and paying municipal taxes on the land owned by it. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Appellant Company was not a shell company. It is further contended that neither the Appellant Company nor its Directors were served any notice for removal of the name of the Company from the Register of the Companies and for this reason alone the impugned order cannot be sustain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....balance sheet and annual reports of the Company are required to be filed online through MCA Portal only. It is further reported that notice was given to Appellant Company through publication in both vernacular and English language published respectively in Tamil 'Dhinamani' issue dated 11th May, 2017 and English 'The Hindu' issue dated 11th May, 2017. 4. Heard the rival sides and perused the record. Ground urged in regard to service of notice under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 has not been stressed at the hearing. Challenge to impugned order on this score, thus, no more survives. 5. It is not in controversy that the Appellant Company incorporated on 8th December, 1983 with main object of undertaking sale and purchase of goods and ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....High Court of Madras. There is nothing in the Report of ROC to even suggest that the Appellant Company was not in existence. The documents relied upon by the Appellant, some of which were not before the Tribunal, unmistakably demonstrate that the Appellant Company is a living entity and its operations have come to a grinding halt, one of the reasons being the pending litigation and the order of stay passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Pending litigation in itself has been judicially recognized as a 'just' ground for restoration of a Company struck off the Register of Companies. It is apt to refer to the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of 'UmedbhaiJhaverbhai Vs. Moreshwar Keshav and Ors. [MANU/MP/01....