TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the register of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana ('RoC'). 2. As per the averments, M/s. Llyod Logistics System Private Limited was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 27.12.2001 under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U72200DL2001PTC113595 and having its registered office at 5645/77, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, which is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. It was submitted by the Appellant Company that the main objects of the Appellant Company, inter alia, are as under: "1. To carry on business of manufactures, importers, exporters of computer, compute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, desktop publishing, computer training in hardware software and world processing. 6. To carry on the business of software for computer data processing machines, types cards, memory equipment or any other equipment's and any other equipment and materials of every kind and description, to licence or otherwise authorise others to engage in general research and development in the areas related to the business of the company. 7. To provide consultancy services in India and abroad on selection of computer systems, software, media, peripherals and allied items, computer personnel and on computerisation in general. 8. To hold seminars, courses, training institutions and business conferences for training in computer and office automation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar Gulati, whereby the responsibilities and management including the management, compliances and administration of the appellant company was to be taken care of by Mr. Jagdish Gulati. Thereafter, appellant further came to now that one of the Director being Mr. Jagdish Gulati resigned from the directorship of the company and Mr. Girindra Biswas had been inducted as a new director. 6. The Appellant Company in order to justify its restoration in the name of the Register of Company has relied upon the financial statement and books of accounts pertaining to the year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 7. That the RoC has filed its report dated 30.06.2020 and submitted that: 4. Thai the Company was incorporated on 27.12.2001 and the last Annual ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies. 10. The name of the Appellant Company was struck off from the Register of ROC on 30.06.2017 and the present appeal is filed on 06.02.2020. Hence the present appeal is not barred by limitation. 11. After going through the Appeal, documents placed on record and reply, we make the following observations: a) the Appellant company in its MOA has enumerated a wide range of business activities which it was carrying on prior to the striking off. But, the Appellant company has not produced any documents or proof, such as invoices or purchase order to show that the company was doing any business immediately prior to the striking off. Hence, there is no reason for us to believe that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maintains the audited balance sheets. However, the Appellant Company has failed to place on record the financial statement or any other sufficient proof to show that it was earning revenue from business operations immediately two years prior to the striking off. Moreover, vide additional affidavit dated 30.05.2022, the appellant has placed on record the balance sheet for the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 which reflects revenue from operation is 'NIL' for both the financial years. Further, the other income reflected for financial, years on 2018-19 and 2019-20 is Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 47,20,063/- respectively. However, the Appellant Company was only earning income through other sources being rental income and Job wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the time of its name being struck off was carrying on business - or in operation or otherwise it is 'just' that the name of company be restored. We do not find ourselves persuaded to agree with the preposition canvassed by learned counsel for the Appellant that inspite of Appellant's inability to demonstrate that the Company was at the relevant time carrying on business or in operation, the Tribunal had. vast powers to order restoration of Company on the ground, "or otherwise". This term "or otherwise" has been judiciously used by the legislature to arm the Tribunal to order restoration of a struck off company within the permissible time limit to take care of situations where it would be just and fair to restore company in t....