TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ("the Act") against an impugned order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi Bench-V in Company Appeal No. 199/252/ND/2020 where the said appeal was rejected vide the impugned order. 2. The appellant company is aggrieved by the impugned order, vide which the appeal herein seeking restoration of the appellant company's name in the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana was rejected by the Ld. NCLT. 3. It is alleged the Ld. NCLT without appreciating the evidence and documents placed on record by the appellant company rejected the said appeal filed by the appellant. It was argued the Ld. NCLT had grossly erred in holding the appellant company was neither in operation nor was doing any significant business at the time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Registrar. 6. It is argued further returns for the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 as well as till 2021-22 were prepared but could not be uploaded as the name of the company was struck off. 7. In order to show the company was doing its business, the appellant had filed a short note in compliance of order dated 21.08.2024 and it read as under: "3. In terms of the same, the Appellant had leased a part o the factory in Noida to a tenant and had also undertaken job work on textile in efforts to revive the business of the Appellant. 4. The operations of the Appellant are running continuously and the same is evident from the balance sheets of the Appellant filed along with the appeal, details of which are as under:- Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant company from the Register of Companies as maintained by the Respondent/ROC be also quashed and the appellant company be restored to its original status as if the name of the company was never struck off from Register of Companies and thus to take all the consequential actions like changing the status of the company from being 'struck off' to 'active' on MCA Portal and to enable them to file overdue documents. 9. In Sidhi Singh and Anr. v. Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) No. 49 of 2021, this Tribunal in similar circumstances, restored the name of the company to its original name. The relevant portion of the judgment are as follows: 9. We have gone through the records and submissions made by the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve a fixed substantial asset worth crores. The company is still sole absolute owner and in possession of the property situated at Bhakti Bhavan Estate, Kulri, Mussoorie and if the company's name is not restored then, of course, it would result to an irreparable loss and prejudice to the appellant and the fixed assets of company would be a deadlock and would result in wastage of property which is, of course, contrary to the public policy. Admittedly the property is free from all encumbrances. 25. For the reasons aforesaid we find it just and equitable to restore the name of the appellant company to the record of ROC and thus we set aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Ld. NCLT and direct the ROC, New Delhi to rest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which accumulated to Rs. 630589/- from the year ending 31st March, 2013 and loss of Rs. 3500/- and Rs. 3500/- from the year ending as on 2016-17, 2017-18. From these facts it cannot be said that the company is not carrying on any business. 12. From the above discussions and observations we have come to the conclusion that it would be just that the name of the company is directed to be restored........." 10. It is also to be noted the Income Tax Department had already given no objection for restoration of the name of appellant company and the impugned order notes the appeal filed before the Ld. NCLT was in time and there was no delay. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ROC opposes to the allowing of this appeal. 12. Consid....