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 266 - AT - Companies LawSeeking restoration of name of the Appellant Company in the Register of Companies, New Delhi - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - sufficient notice under Section 248(1(c) of the Act was not sent - proper opportunity to hear the case not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 248 of the Act deals with the powers of Registrar to remove name of the company from register of companies. Section 248(1)(e) of the Act provides that a notice shall be sent to the Company and all the Directors of the Company, of his intention to remove the name of the company from the register of companies and requesting them to send their representations along with copies of the relevant documents, if any, within a period of thirty days of notice. The importance of the ‘date’ cannot be undermined keeping in view that Section 248(1)(c) provides that a company should be carrying on business or operation for two immediately preceding financial years. On a query from the Bench to the Learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent/RoC as to which ‘Mode of Despatch’ the aforenoted ‘Notice’ was sent, it was informed to the Bench that the Notice was sent by ‘ordinary’ process. Hence there is no ‘Proof of Service’ which could be ascertained. However, a general notice with respect to all the names which have been struck off from the RoC has been said to be listed on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) - Having regard to the fact that the publication in the newspaper only refers to the link of the website of the MCA but it does not state anywhere the names of the companies, which are only reflected/specified in the website, and admittedly a general notice relating to thousands of companies, this Tribunal is of the considered view that notice in the proper form which is ‘dated’ and sent by a ‘Mode of Despatch’ establishing a ‘Proof of Service’ would be considered ‘sufficient notice’, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the attendant case on hand. A perusal of the Notices given for conducting AGM Meeting are 2.9.2015, 2.9.216, both which fall within the relevant period of two years prior to the 30.06.2017. This Tribunal is of the earnest view that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Company is carrying on business for the relevant period of two years keeping in view the Income Tax Returns filed between 2015-2020. The MOU, LOI entered into by the Appellant Company, notices of AGM which also fall within the relevant period, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is otherwise ‘just’ that the name of the company be restored. It is directed that the name of the Appellant Company be restored in the Register of Companies - application allowed.
|