2021 (9) TMI 443 - AT - Companies Law

Seeking restoration of name of company on the register of members - Section 252 (3) of Companies Act - malafide intent present or not - HELD THAT - It is admitted that from the year 2000 onwards the Respondent No. 2 Company not in business or in operation. The Respondent No. 2 has not placed on record any document in support that the Company was carrying on business or in operation when it was struck off on 30.04.2008. Whether the Tribunal has rightly rejected the Appeal on the ground of malafide intention? - HELD THAT - Admittedly the directors have not filed any appeal against the order of Registrar of the Companies. As the Company has not filed the Appeal within a period of three years from the date of order of the Registrar of the Companies which was lapsed in April 2011 - it can be safely presumed that at the instance of the Respondent No. 2 Company the Appellant has filed the Appeal before Tribunal for taking advantage of 20 years limitation from the publication in official gazette as per section 252(3) of the Act - Ld. Tribunal has also rejected the Appeal on the ground of malafide intention. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of National Company Law Tribunal.
2. Striking off the name of a company by Registrar of Companies.
3. Creditor's application for restoration of the company's name.
4. Justification by Registrar of Companies for striking off the name.
5. Appellant's contention of being a creditor and seeking recovery.
6. Tribunal's decision on the credibility of the appellant's claim.
7. Grounds for rejection of the appeal.
8. Respondent No. 2's readiness for compliance and revival.
9. Lack of evidence of the company being in operation.
10. Allegation of malafide intention in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal's order, seeking restoration of a company's name that was struck off by the Registrar of Companies due to non-compliance with filing requirements.
2. The Appellant, claiming to be a creditor, argued that the striking off adversely affected their interests as they were owed a substantial amount by the company. They sought restoration of the company's name to recover the dues.
3. The Registrar of Companies justified the action, stating non-compliance with mandatory filing requirements as the reason for striking off the company's name.
4. The Tribunal, upon review, found insufficient evidence supporting the appellant's claim of being a creditor. It raised doubts about the appellant's credibility and the intention behind seeking restoration of the company's name.
5. Respondent No. 2 expressed readiness for compliance and revival, citing health issues of the former director as a reason for non-compliance with filing requirements and lack of action for revival.
6. The Tribunal concluded that the company was not in operation since 2000, casting doubt on the validity of the appellant's claim of providing services to the company in 2007.
7. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing malafide intention in filing the appeal after the lapse of the three-year appeal period from the date of striking off the company's name.
8. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, finding no merit in the appeal and dismissing it without costs, as the impugned order did not warrant interference.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the decision-making process involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal.