TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.P. Singh Chawla, Advocate. For Respondents: - Mr. Sanjib K Mohanty, Advocate. JUDGEMENT The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against impugned final order and judgement dated 15.03.2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in No.CP-44(ND)/2017 whereby the company petition has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated on 30.4.1997 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The authorised share capital of the company was ₹ 5,00,000/- divided into 50,000/- equity share of ₹ 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company was ₹ 1,00,000/- divided into 10,000/- equity shares of ₹ 10/- each. 3. The ROC-respondent struck off its name from the register on account of the company being not carrying on any business or in operation under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. The name of the appellant company was struck off vide Official Gazette Notification dated 23.06.2007. The claim of the appellant is that the appellant is activ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be drawn against petitioner. In the factual background it would fortify the view that the company has no business transaction and was not in operation since its inception. 12. As a sequel to the above discussions this petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.3.2018 the appellant have filed the present appeal. 8. The appellant has stated that the appellant has been carrying on the Cycle manufacturing business since its incorporation. The appellant further stated that the company did not receive any show cause notice issued by the respondent and also stated that the property adjacent to the appellant had somehow colluded with the postman to prevent any correspondence from reaching the appellant. 9. The appellant further stated that the due to various factors, such as the illness of its directors, paucity of funds, severe recession, as well as a general slump in the market, the appellant business was not very successful after incorporation and, therefore, it was unable to file the necessary statutory documents with the respondent since accounting year 2000-2001. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corporation which compelled 1st respondent to believe that appellant was not carrying out any business. 14. 1st respondent stated that the notices under Section 560 of the Companies Act,1956 were issued but are not readily traceable as the records of ROC, Delhi and Haryana have been shifted to Manesar but 1st respondent stressed that the notices under Section 560(5) was issued and published in the official gazette vide dated 23.6.20017. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been carrying on the Cycle manufacturing business since its incorporation. The appellant further argued that the company did not receive any show cause notice issued by the respondent and also argued that the occupier of the property adjacent to the appellant had somehow colluded with the postman to prevent any correspondence from reaching the appellant. 17. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the appellant had not filed any statutory documents i.e. Balance Sheet and Annual Returns since its incorporation which was in contravention of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, paucity of funds, severe recession, as well as a general slump in the market, the appellant business was not very successful after incorporation and, therefore, it was unable to file the necessary statutory documents with the respondent since accounting year 2000-2001. The appellant further stated that the appellant only came to know about the name of the appellant being struck off only in 2017 but the company continued to operate and carry on its business in its usual course. The appellant further argued that due to inadvertence the appellant company has not had the opportunity to justify to the respondents that the name of company should not be struck off. Further the company argued that the ample time has not been provided to the company to present that the company is carrying on business or is in operation. The appellant argued that the company has been regular in preparing annual accounts and also holding its board meetings, general meetings of the shareholders as and when required, maintain proper records, register. The appellant argued that the company has two shareholders and three creditors and they have consented to the restoration of the name of the appellant company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
