Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (12) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1034 - Tri - Companies LawStriking of name of company from registrar of companies - reasonableness for the Registrar to assume that the appellant company was not carrying on any business or operation - Held that:- The appellant company has been carrying on its operation which is evident from the fact that it made payment to its employees (para 5), it provided services to Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic Private Limited (para 5), it received payment for the services provided to various clients of the company as per details given in preceding para 5 and it has availed services from various agencies as revealed in preceding para 6. The appellant company has also taken on lease office space for running its operation and has also reflected its turnover for the financial year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 (para 6). It has even entered into Memorandum of understanding with various entities as extracted in preceding para 8. There are assets available as is mentioned in supra para 9. In the face of the aforesaid it would not be reasonable for the Registrar to assume that the appellant company was not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial year. The appellant company cannot thus be regarded as a defunct company. The fact remains that there is no plausible explanation as to why it has not filed its annual returns and balance sheets before the ROC. There is thus a serious lapse on the part of the appellant company. In the facts and circumstances explained in the preceding paras we are of the view that the appellant company fulfils the requirement of Section 252(1) read with Section 252(3) of the Companies Act which overwhelming warrant its restoration. As a sequel to the above discussion this appeal is allowed. The appellant company is restored to its original name.
|