Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2021 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 19 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCHSeeking to restore the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Respondent/RoC - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - case of applicant is that due procedure of law as contemplated under Section 248(5) and (6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was not followed by the Respondent will passing an order of strike of - HELD THAT:- As to the facts of the present case, the Applicant has pleaded in the Application and also challenged the procedure followed by the Respondent in striking off the name of the Company. In so far as the compliance to be made under Section 248(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 is concerned, from the Report filed by the Respondent, it is seen from para 17 of the Report that the Registrar has satisfied himself from the scrutiny of the balance sheet of the Company and it was found that the Company does not have any borrowings and third party liabilities. Under such circumstances, it is safe to conclude that the order passed by the Registrar under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Further, as to the procedural irregularity as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant, it is to be noted here that eventhough in the Application the Applicant has stated that Form No. STK-5 was issued on 10.07.2017 and Form No. STK-7 was issued on 08.11.2017, the Applicant has preferred to remain indolent at that point of time, without sending any reply to the Respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of sending notice to the Company and its director. Further, from the procedure as laid down under Section 248(5) and (6) of the Companies Act, 2013, it is seen that the Respondent has followed the due process of law and has sent notice to the Company as enumerated under the Rules framed thereunder. This Tribunal is not empowered to issue directions to the Respondent in respect of which section (either 248 or 455), the action should be contemplated against a defaulting company. So long as the action initiated by the Respondent is falling within the purview of the Companies Act, 2013, this Tribunal cannot be called into to question its legality. Further, the stance of the Applicant that the Respondent has not preferred to initiate action against the Company under Section 455(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 but rather under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013, would not vitiate the proceedings undertaken by the Respondents under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. However on the other hand it is the Company which has miserably failed to place on record any documents to show that the Company is active and carrying on its business activities. It is a fact borne on record that the Company has failed to file its Annual Returns and the Balance Sheet with the Respondent from the year 2006 onwards and also it is seen from the typed set filed along with the Application that they have not filed the Balance Sheet from the year 2006 onwards also before this Tribunal, which would go on to show that eventhough the name of the Company is restored, it would be a futile exercise, since the Company is not ready with its Balance Sheet and Annual Returns to be filed with the Respondent. There are no legal infirmities in the order passed by the Respondent under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 in striking off the name of the Company viz. M/s. Sunflower Finlinks Limited from the Register maintained by them - application dismissed.
|