Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1467 - AT - Companies LawRestoration of name of Appellant in the Registrar of Companies - striking off the name on the ground that the Appellant Company was not in operation and was not doing any business on the date of striking off of the name of the company - whether the Appellant Company could justifiably be restored? HELD THAT:- On the crucial issue of the Appellant Company being in operation and doing business in consonance with its object be it noticed that the financial statements covering fiscal period beginning 2013 through 2017 amply demonstrate that the Appellant Company was not in operation and did not conduct any business of the nature bearing nexus with its intended object. The Tribunal has tabulated the factual position emanating from such financial statements reflecting the assets, liability and turn-over of the Company as ‘NIL’. Thus, the finding that the Appellant Company was not doing the intended business cannot be termed erroneous notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant Company is shown to have been engaged in granting short term loans and advances to its sister concern which was not the intended object of the Company. Indulging in business activity not falling within the ambit of object of the Company or not being incidental or ancillary thereto cannot be termed a legitimate business for demonstrating that the Company was in operation. The finding recorded by the Tribunal and the conclusions deducible from the material on record do not warrant interference as no contrary view is possible - A Shell Company or a Company having assets but advancing loans to sister concerns or corporate persons for siphoning of the funds, evading tax or indulging in unlawful business or not abiding by the statutory compliances cannot be allowed to invoke this expression “or otherwise” which would be a travesty of justice besides defeating the very object of the Company. Such course would neither be just nor warranted. The Appellant has failed to make out a just ground warranting interference with the impugned order which is neither shown to be legally infirm nor are the findings recorded therein shown to be erroneous, much less perverse - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|