2022 (12) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sent Appeal is filed by invoking provisions of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the order dated 25th November, 2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in CP (Appeal) No. 947/KB/2019 under Sections 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 whereby the National Company Law Tribunal (in short 'NCLT') dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant herein. Brief Facts: Appellant's Submissions: 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant preferred the present Appeal and narrated the brief facts. 3. It is submitted that the Appellant filed the Application before the NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of name of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding years. 7. It is submitted that the NCLT observed that there is not just reason to restore the name of the Company on the Register of Companies for the reason that the Company is not an active company and not carrying on any business for which it was incorporated. Accordingly, the application of the Appellant was dismissed. 8. It is submitted that the Company was incorporated as a Private Limited on 01.04.2009 and as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the company acquired its prime assets viz. Real Estate unit in Kolkata and the Company is in operation since its incorporation as per the objectives of the Appellant's Articles of Association. The Company duly file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... among other pleas it is also stated at para 7 of the Reply, that the name of the Company which is struck off from the Register of ROC can be allowed to be revived under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the Appellant may be directed to file all the pending statutory returns with the additional fees within 30 days from the date of passing of the order, failing which the ROC may be directed to strike off the name of the Company again without giving any notice to the Appellant. Analysis / Appraisal: 14. Heard the Learned Counsel appeared for the respective parties, perused the pleadings and documents. The short point for consideration is whether the Appellant has made out any ground to allow the Appeal as prayed for. 15. On ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, it is seen that the Appellant Company filed its statutory compliances as per law. Whilst the NCLT though in its order at para 3 observed that the Appellant Company enclosed/annexed with the Appeal the copies of the Annual Returns, Balance Sheet and Income Tax Returns for the Financial Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and 2018-19. Despite sufficient evidence placed before it, the NCLT failed to consider the same on merits. 18. Even though the law provides for striking off the name of the Company for non-complying the statutory requirement as stipulated under Section 248 Companies Act, 2013, the statute also provides Section 252 of the Act to prefer an Appeal to the Tribunal by the aggrieved person against such dissolution of the Compan....