AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Parth Semwal and Mr. Vipul Agrawal , Jr. Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay Singh ; The present Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been preferred by the Appellants against the final order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Court-III) in Appeal No. 305/252/ND/2020 whereby the Appellants filed the application under Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking restoration of name of the Company in the Register of the Companies and after hearing the parties the Tribunal passed the following orders: ".... In the facts and circumstances recorded herein, there does not appear any grounds for ordering the restoration of the name of the company in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany has paid Property Tax to municipal corporation, Ludhiana for the period of 2013-14 to 2019-20. iii) Further case is that while the Company did not file its financial statements and annual returns since 2012 on account of acute staff shortage and financial crisis and was done inadvertently and that there is no such willful or mala-fide motive behind non filing of e-forms with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. The default committed was purely unintentional nonetheless, the Company was kept active and operational and followed all essential corporate procedures. It took various actions to discharge its duties and obligations as a legal entity and to defend its rights. The Company conducted its Annual General Meeting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntenance of immovable property such as payment of property tax and other miscellaneous expenses. 4. It is further submitted that the Company conducted its Annual General Meeting annually and prepared audited financial statements from 2016-17 to 2018-19 and also filed its Income Tax Returns from AY 2006-07 to 2012-13 and thereafter from AY 2013-14 to till date. It is evident that the Appellant Company even after 2012 had been in operation and continued to be in operation. However, without knowledge to the Company and without serving it any notice whatsoever, the Respondent No. 1 published the Order no. ROC-DLE/248(5)/STK-7/2879 dated 30.06.2017 whereby it struck off the name of the Company from the register of companies. 5. It is furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order is fit to be set aside and the Appeal be allowed. i) Khetan Granite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of Registrar of Companies., [Company Appeal (AT) No. 290 of 2019]. ii) Felpact Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. ROC and Ors., (Company Petition No. 24 of 2012). iii) Purushottamdass and Anr. (Bulakidas Mohta Co. P. Ltd.) Vs. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra & Ors. (1986) 60 Company Case 154 (Bom). iv) Bandhu Systematix Private Limited Vs. ROC., Company Petition 787 of 2015. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 8. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 / RoC during the course of argument and in his reply affidavit submitted that as per available records on MCA 21 portal, the last Directors of the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the Appellant Company was carrying out any operation for a period of 2 immediately preceding financial years nor have any immovable property in its name, therefore, the company was unable to produce before the Tribunal any just and equitable ground for revival. Based on these submissions, the NCLT has rightly passed the impugned order, therefore, there is no merit in the present Appeal, the Appeal is fit to be dismissed. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 / Income Tax Department during the course of argument and in his reply affidavit submitted that the information pertaining to the struck off Company i.e. SB Infosoft Ludhiana Private Limited is sought from my office in order to assist the court in deciding the present Appe....