Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1471 - AT - Companies LawRestoration of name of Company “Shaila Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd” in the Register of Companies - HELD THAT:- The NCLT took note of the appeal which was filed before it and the NCLT observed that ROC has not made any adverse observations or objections except praying that the statutory required documents need to be complied with. There is no dispute that STK 7 was issued on 30.6.2017 after issue of STK 5. The appellant has not filed the copy of the STK 5. The number and date of STK5 is referred in STK 7. STK5 is published and the notice gives chance to the concerned company to still show cause. In the present matter NCLT has observed the fact that ROC followed due process to strike off the name of the company, was not disputed. When ROC issued notices to the appellant, the appellant never responded. As such the subsequent efforts to show that the appellant was in business or in operation or that it has property was never taken up with the ROC to find any fault of the action taken by ROC. The appellant has pointed out an agreement of sale of 2010 but there is no supporting sale deed to show that the transaction was even completed and property has been purchased by the company. NCLT has already observed that nothing is shown as carrying out work on any such land. In fact nothing is shown indicating possession and use of any such land. Merely showing an agreement of sale of 2010 which was before 2011 till when the earlier returns were filed would not be enough - We are not impressed by pointing out by such old sale agreement, and balance sheet now prepared when Company has been struck off. The appellant has not made out a case to show that the appellant was in business or that the company was in operation, when the company was struck off or that there is any just ground why the name of the company should be restored. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|