TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment under Section 252(3) to be read with Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013. The consequential effect of the impugned orders had been that the Registrar of Companies (RoC) has been directed to restore Respondent No. 2 Company in the respective Company Appeals to their original status in the Register of Companies and the Appellant has been directed to remit a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to RoC in each of the cases, towards cost of the proceedings for Gazette Publication charges and the Counsel's fee. 3. While putting a challenge to the said orders, the Appellant in all these Company Appeals, has come up with a case that it does not intend to challenge the part of order relating to restoration of the registration of the Respondent No.2 Companies and that it only seeks to challenge the imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- that has been imposed by the Ld. Tribunal on it. The relief as it has been sought by the Appellants in all these Company Appeals have been collated and reproduced below:- '''In view of the facts mentioned above, the Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: a) To Set aside the direction to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Application, which were unintentional and hence may be condoned. Having considered the grounds taken in the Restoration Application and finding the same to be reasonable, the respective Restoration Applications, would stand allowed and the order of dismissal dated 23.01.2026, as respectively passed in each of the Company Appeals, would stand recalled. The Company Appeals are restored to its original number. 7. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on the merits of the Company Appeal. Regarding the objections raised by the Registry that an independent Delay Condonation Application has not been filed, she has submitted, that the law in itself does not contemplate the filing of an independent application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeals, more particularly, when the Appellant had already explained the reasons of the said delay in the memorandum of Appeal itself. She has contended that, though the impugned orders were pronounced on 17.07.2025, the copy of the same was made available to the Appellant only on 08.08.2025 and that the Appellant has taken prompt actions thereafter and preferred, the Company Appeal by filing the same before the Registry on 16.09.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Register of Companies in the proceedings, that were held under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, has exclusively taken into consideration, the submissions made by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) and has come to the conclusion that the imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Appellant becomes necessary for the purposes of meeting the expenditure to be incurred by RoC in the process of the restoration of the registration of the Respondent Companies which includes cost of carrying out Gazette notification and cost of Counsel fees. 11. Ld. NCLT observed in the impugned order that, the restoration of registration of Respondent No.2 Company is being permitted in order to provide an opportunity to the Income Tax Department, to take steps for the recovery of the legitimate government dues payable to Income Tax Department by Respondent No.2 Companies under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and since the process of restoration of registration will entail certain costs to be incurred by RoC in carrying out Gazette Publication and meeting the fees of its Counsels and as RoC has prayed for payment of a cost of Rs. 25,000/- by the Income Tax Department, the same is being direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be made based upon the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, under which the Tribunal will come to a conclusion that it would be apt to impose a particular amount of cost to meet out the expenditures that, might have occasioned in carrying out the proceedings by the Registrar of Companies. However, we notice that in all these Appeals, the said determination has been made by the Ld. Tribunal based on a passing observation that the RoC has prayed that the Tribunal may award a cost of at least of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of RoC. In fact, the impugned orders do not disclose that, the Tribunal had ever justified the quantification of cost, which under law, is required as per Sub Rule (c) of Rule 4 of Rule 87A. Hence, in the absence of there being a determination of the cost, the directions to impose cost of Rs. 25,000/- in the instant proceedings cannot be sustained. 15. This could be looked into from yet another perspective. In clause(c) of Rule 87A(4), while the Legislature has used the word "occasioned", it simultaneously uses the word "unless the Tribunal directs otherwise", which means that as per this provision, it is not mandatory for the Tribunal to inva....