9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No.CP/111/(252)/2017 whereby the appeal of the appellants for restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies filed under Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 (Act in short) was dismissed. The NCLT held that since the appellant company did not file its annual accounts and annual returns w.e.f. the FY ending 2000-01 onwards till date due to which it has been "struck off" from the Register of Companies during 2005, as the show cause notice was given on 20th July, 2005 as contemplated under Section 560(1) of Companies Act, 1956. 2. It is stated that the main objects of the company are to undertake, promote, assist or engage in all kinds of research and development work required to promote, assist or engage in setting up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was statutorily disqualified on account of non-filing of returns and in any case no plausible explanation for non-filing has been given. 5. It is stated that the appellant No.1 company is entitled to file the application/petition for restoration of its name to the ROC under the Companies Act, 2013. It is stated that being an artificial juridicial person, the Company can act only through the Directors and therefore, the company petition was maintainable. It is stated that personal disqualification of individual from becoming Director in any other company dos not denude the appellant No.2 of its authority and responsibility to act on behalf of the appellant No.1 company. 6. It is stated that the appellant No.1 is still carrying on some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has argued that appellant company is managed by two shareholders namely the appellant No.2 and one Mr. Gnanaselvam Savarimuthu (Pare 7EUR Page 5). Appellant further argued that the as per Section 252(3) of Companies Act, 2013 he is entitled to file revival application being shareholder of the appellant company. 10. Counsel for the ROC argued that Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that revival petition before the Tribunal can be filed by a company or creditor or workman or member. ROC further argued that Section 252(3) of the Act allows a member to file revival petition of a struck off company. 11. We observe that the appellant No.2 is a shareholder of appellant company and as per Section 252(3) of Companies Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 and 44 and observe that the Tax Bills are in the name of Chandrasekaran V and not in the name of company and amount of Rs. 30274/- each have been paid Cheque No.57066 dated 24.10.2016 from Account No.102466041 and vide Cheque No.57358 from Account No.3166726599 on 30.1.2018. We find that the Tax Bills are not in the name of the company and the payment has been made from two different accounts. No proof has been given that these bills have been paid from the company's bank account and the bills are in the name of company. As regards the argument of the appellant that the company has taken secured loan and unsecured loan from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd and directors respectively. We observe that the Balance Sheet filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
