Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2022 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1576 - AT - Companies LawStriking off of the Appellant/Company’s name from the Registrar of Companies - contention of the Appellant is that the 1st Respondent/Registrar of Companies has nowhere prayed that the Appellant/Company should remain struck off, rather it had prayed that the Appellant/Company be directed to file all the pending returns of the Appellant/Company. HELD THAT:- Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 points out that one of the three conditions need to be satisfied before exercising the ‘jurisdiction’ to restore a company to the ‘Registrar of Companies’ on the file of ‘Registrar of Companies’. In fact, the ‘Company’ at the time of its name was struck off was to carry on business, or it was in operation, or it is otherwise just that the ‘Name of the Company’ be restored on the ‘Register’. The ‘Liability’ under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013 is that even a defunct company, like every other Company is under an obligation to file the Statutory ‘Annual Returns’ till it is wound up or till such time, the Company is struck off by the Registrar u/s 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. As far as the present case is concerned, even though, the 1st Respondent/‘Registrar of Companies’ has come out with the plea that the ‘Company’ was incorporated on 25.08.1985 and the last Annual Return and Balance Sheet was submitted by the ‘Company’ to its office, before it was considered to be ‘struck off’, relate to the ‘Financial Year’ that ended on 31.03.2006 and later, no documents were filed by the ‘Company’ to claim the status of a ‘Dormant Company’ under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013, this ‘Tribunal’ taking note of the fact that the ‘Company’ has ‘Assets and Liabilities’ and more so, keeping in mind that the ‘right to seek restoration’ of the name of the ‘Company’ (to be entered in the ‘Register of Companies’) is not extinguished/lost as long as 20 years have not expired, and besides these, the 1st Respondent in its ‘Reply’ before the ‘Tribunal’ had mentioned that the ‘Tribunal’ may kindly issue directions to the ‘Appellant’/‘Petitioner’ to file all documents of the ‘subject company with it, of course, within the time specified by the ‘Tribunal’, in all ‘Fairness’ ‘Reasonableness’ and ‘Equitableness’ is of the earnest opinion that it is just and proper to restore the name of the Company and that the omissions/latches/failures on the part of the Management of the Company in not filing the ‘Annual Returns’ and ‘Financial Statements’ in time can be fastened with a levy of cause, to secure the ‘Ends of Justice’. Otherwise, it will cost ‘irreparable hardship’ and ‘Prejudice’ to the ‘Company’, as opined by this ‘Tribunal’. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
|