TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) The company, M/s. Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 4th May, 1962, as a private company limited by shares with its CIN No. being U34300DL1962PTC003199. Its authorised share capital was Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) and paid-up share capital was Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). The affairs of the said company were being managed mainly by the Appellant when the appeal against the first Respondent's action under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, was filed, since two of its other directors, Shri Harnam Singh Suri and Sardarni Wiranwali Suri are deceased. iv. The Respondent No. 1 herein had struck off the name of the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., from the Register of Companies, and it was the Appellant's contention before the National Company Law Tribunal that the Respondent No. 1 did not seem to have followed the procedure prescribed in law before doing so. Notices as required seemed not to have been sent and / or published in the official Gazette. That in any case, the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., did not receive any show cause notice, nor was it afforded any opportunity of being heard before the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the auction sale of the plot of land belonging to the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., the auction purchaser, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Goel, had filed a Special Leave Petition, being S.L.P. (C) No. 15873 of 2006, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide a detailed judgment dated 8th July, 2010, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5177 of 2010 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15873 of 2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held the auction sale of the plot of land leased by the U.P.S.I.D.C. to the company, Bramec Suri Pw. Ltd., as being "thoroughly illegal" and dismissed the appeal of the auction purchaser, Rakesh Kumar Goel (Annexure A-4 of the Appeal). v) Further case is that eventually, possession of the plot of land in question, i.e., Plot No. 2/1, in Sahibabad Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, reverted back to the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd. During the period of illegal possession, however, the land-grabber, Rakesh Kumar Goel, had dismantled the factory building on the land leased to the company, and removed all machinery and equipment therefrom, and started running a marriage hall at the premises. All papers are records pertaining to the company which were primarily being m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he company had engaged the services of professionals to perform the task of filing its returns with the office of the Registrar of Companies. However, in the long years of litigation over its valuable asset, i.e., the land obtained by it on lease from the U.P.S.I.D.C., most of the employees of the company and other service-providers engaged by it, had left. Some essential compliances were therefore neglected as a consequence. In the meantime, interested buyers have approached the appellant for the transfer of the company's lease hold rights over the land in question, which is its principal asset. It was therefore contended that to be able to enter into transactions that may prove beneficial for the company, and enable it to stand on its feet and recommence business in right earnest, it is imperative that the name of the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., unlawfully struck off by the Respondent No. 1 from the register of companies from STK-5 dated 13th June, 2017 and from STK-7 dated 1st September, 2017. viii) Thereafter, being aggrieved by the notice of the Respondent No. 1 of "Striking Off", the Appellant approached the Tribunal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect to the land, such as rental and other dues of the U.P.S.I.D.C., in furtherance of its effort to recommence operations. The Tribunal below failed to appreciate that for no fault of its own, the company, Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd., had to halt operations, but after the wrong done was corrected by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was making all efforts to resume the work that it was previously doing. The Tribunal below also failed to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances, this is a fit case in which a chance must be given to the company, its members and creditors to revive the company struck off by the Registrar of Companies. Despite the submission by the Appellant that in the event of revival of the company and restoration of its name, it shall file all remaining / outstanding statutory documents, and pay all pending dues and fees. In view of the above submissions, the impugned order is bad in facts and in law, and passed without due application of mind, and therefore deserves to be set aside and the instant Appeal be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Registrar of Companies during the course of argument submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect company with the Registrar of Companies within such time as specified by this Tribunal and also may award cost in favour of the Respondent No. 1/ ROC as the Appellant failed to file its Statutory Returns with the Respondents under the Companies Act, 2013. 9. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2/Income Tax Department in his Reply stated that the Company i.e. M/s. Bramec Suri Pvt. Ltd. may not have registered for PAN with the Income Tax Department and therefore, this Tribunal may direct the Appellant to provide information as to whether the Company has registered for PAN or not. 10. After hearing the parties, going through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that the Company is having a large plot of land approximate area of 27,822 square yards, from the U.P.S.I.D.C., being Plot No. 2/l, in Sahibabad Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. vide lease deed dated 15th July, 1972 shows that the Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Company is not carrying on any business or operations. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (Court-....