TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y appeal engages, consideration of a very short question, about the parameters which are required to be followed for the purposes of conducting the proceedings under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the purposes of the modalities, which are required to be adopted for de-listing the company and its consequential restoration? Another question which will engage consideration is as to the Appellate Tribunal when they are exercising their powers under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, what will be the implications over the controversy in questions pertaining to Section 252(3) which has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Particularly in the context of powers contained under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have been purchased immovable assets on the basis of the sale deed as, it was got registered on 05.08.2014. The name of the company was struck off from the register on the ground, that the company had purchased the properties in accordance with the sale deed of 05.08.2014, and the same was reflected in the encumbrance certificate. It was stated that since the liabilities of the United Bank of India was providing for requiring the repayment of the loan was not satisfied and default was committed for which the notice was issued on 08.09.2010, the Appellant contends that the companies was facing an acute financial crunch due to the downward trend of the business and they did not had enough funds available in their coffers to meet day to day....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d back was rejected. The ground taken for the purposes of rejecting the application by the Ld. Tribunal was that the conditions given under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, which, according to the inference drawn by the Ld. Tribunal, it was observed that the Appellant has not been able to satisfy the twin ingredient to be satisfied to the effect that the company at the time of its name being struck off, was actually carrying on the business, and was in operation. 5. Further, the Appellant was not able to satisfy that restoration of the name of the company in the register of the company, would be in the interest of, the company for the justifiable reasons to be given in the application. The Ld. Tribunal has taken a view that sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow that there was a sufficient proof that the company was active. 8. On the contrary, and as it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant who has submitted that in the balance sheets, which was presented by them before the Ld. Tribunal, it showed that the company was in an operational condition and the business activities were being carried out, but these documents were declined to be accepted and considered merely on the ground that the balance sheets were not endorsed by the Chartered Accountant. He has further contended that Company at the time being struck off, did have assets on its balance sheet. 9. The reason which has been taken by the Tribunal for denying the permission of the company to be restored back, in the Re....