2020 (12) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor, under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order of striking off the name of the company, passed by the Respondent under Section 248 (1) of the Act, issued vide bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(1)/STK-7/6217 dated on 29.10.2019 by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein. 2. The Appellant states that, the company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana under the Companies Act, 1956 on 16.06.1989 with CIN U74899 DL1989 PTC036653, having its registered office situated at 13/14 Windsor Mansion, Janpath Lane, New Delhi- 110001, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. The Authorized Share Capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... name of 8114 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 29.10.2019 from the Registrar of Companies. 6. As per the ROC, Appellant had not filed its Financial Statements and Annual Returns for the Financial Year 2016- 17, 2017-2018 and 2018-19, thereby giving rise to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation. Consequently, the name of the company was struck off in terms of provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016. 7. The Appellant has brought forward the following documents about it being in operation and functional during the period of striking off: i. The copies of Audited Fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was in operation at the time of striking off its name or where it appears "just" to the Adjudicating Authority that the name of the company is to be restored to the Register of Companies and the Section 252(1) further contemplates that one of the above three conditions are required to be satisfied before exercising jurisdiction to restore the company to its original name on the register of the Registrar of Companies. 11. The Appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore it could not be termed as a defunct company as per Section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, which vests this Tribunal....