2023 (5) TMI 986 - AT - Corporate Laws

Seeking restoration of striken off name of company on the Register of Companies - preceding two years on behalf of the company no financial statement and annual returns were filed before the ROC and the company was non-operational - HELD THAT:- Once the appellant was taking a stand that the company was doing business, it was mandatorily required to satisfy the NCLT with, cogent evidence that the company was doing some business or company was operational. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant that company was operational or doing business in absence of any cogent material is not sustainable. It is further seen from the stand taken by the ROC before the NCLT in the application filed by the applicant i.e. Appeal No.150/2020 that the company was not operational and doing no business. The ROC in its reply in para 4,5,6 and 7 has clarified the position and also clarified that before striking off the name, the company was given full opportunity to explain.

On examination of the table in para No.7 of the reply, it is evident that the Colum No.1 i.e. Revenue from operation and Column No.4, GST Details, have been shown as blank. Meaning thereby that neither any GST was paid nor revenue from operation was collected. These facts are enough to draw an inference that the company was non-operational nor doing any business. Besides this there is admission of the appellant before NCLT that in the management of the company there was deadlock due to litigation and disputes amongst the directors.

On examination of the provision of section 250 of Companies Act, it goes without saying that even a company whose name has been struck off, is competent to realise claim/claims and similarly his liability can also be realised by others. It is evident that while considering the case of Indian Explosives Ltd [2010 (4) TMI 1185 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in the year 2010 there was no occasion for the Hon’ble High Court to examine the Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013. Moreover, if a specific procedure has been provided under Section 248 of the Act for taking a decision in special exigency for striking off the name of the company taking lenient view in passing restoration of the name of the company may amount to render a statutory provision i.e. Section 248 of the Act redundant without any plausible explanation. In the present case the facts which have emerged are sufficient to persuade us that the Learned NCLT has committed no error in rejecting the appeal filed by the company under Section 252 of the Act for its restoration.

There are no error in the impugned order warranting interference - appeal dismissed.