TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana ('the RoC'). 2. As per the averments, M/s. Digital Properties and Hotels Private Limited was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 14.09.2007 under the Erstwhile Companies Act, 2056 with CIN No. U45400DL2007PTC168190 and having its registered office at 105, South-ex Plaza-II, South Extn-II, New Delhi-110049, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. That as per the MoA annexed, the Appellant Company was incorporated with the following object: "To carry on the business as owners, builders, colonizers, developers, promoters, proprietors, occupiers, lessors, interior, decorator....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 05.03.2018, the Hon'ble NCLT appointed statutory auditors to audit the accounts of the Company and further directed to fix Board Meeting for approving the financial statements. It has been further stated that in spite of the fact that the accounts were audited, Mr. Sunny Gupta one of the Directors refused to sign the audited financial documents and therefore, the same could not be uploaded on to the website of the RoC. 7. It is averred by the Appellant Company in Para-4 of the Appeal that: k) It is further submitted that throughout the Oppression and Mismanagement proceedings Mr. Sunny Gupta kept on taking adjournments. The matter was finally agreed on 27.02.2020 and this Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to pass a detailed judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Portal (MCA21 Portal) for electronic filing of statutory documents, indicates that the Appellant Company as "Strike Off for e-filling." 8. That the Appellant Company has annexed its audited balance sheets for the Financial Years from 2010-11 to 2016-17 with the present Appeal. 9. The RoC has filed its reply and submitted that: "That the Respondent most respectfully submits that the action of striking off of the present Company was legal and justified and was the result of the operation of the law, as the company was not carrying on any operations for a period of two immediately preceding financial years (as indicated by non-filing of the financial statements of the Company for two or more years)......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 which vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company whose name has been struck off and such Company is able to demonstrate that there is a running business as on the date when the name was struck off and also keeping in consideration that it is just to do so can restore the name of the Company in the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders including the Appellant itself to enable the company to defend in the litigation pending, who seeks restoration of the name of the Company in the register maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserved to be restored. Therefore, we are of the view that the RoC was not justified....