TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds projected at the hearing constitute a valid and just ground for restoring the Company on the Register of Companies - restoration of the name of the Company on the Register of Companies is allowed subject to the Appellants complying with all the statutory requirements for the defaulting period and paying off the fee including penalties leviable thereon warranted under law as determined by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana, within one month - appeal allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 381 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2019 - Mr. Bansi Lal Bhat Member (Judicial) and Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) For Appellant: Mr. P. P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Sood and Ms. Priya Soni, Advocates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dismissing the appeal. 2. The case setup before the Tribunal for restoration of the Company s name to the Register of Companies was that the Company had been doing a good business and earning profits till the year 1999. It was during the period between 1st February, 1999 to 26th July, 1999 that one of the Directors cum Shareholder in connivance with some staff members committed theft of stock of raw material, work in progress, finished goods, all machineries and assets alongwith book of accounts, statutory records and documents etc. in respect whereof FIR No. 25/99 dated 26th July, 1999 was registered against the accused and investigation was commenced. The said assets were hypothecated with Allahabad Bank against the loan ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file statement with ROC under Section 455 of the Act to obtain the status of a Dormant Company. 19 years huge delay in not starting the business was also a circumstance weighing against allowing restoration of the name of the Company to the Register of Companies. 3. It has been urged in the instant appeal that the Company was earning profits till the year 1999, however, during the period intervening between 1st February, 1999 to 26th July, 1999 one of the Directors cum shareholder in connivance with some staff members committed theft of stock of raw material, work in progress, finished goods, all machineries and assets alongwith book of accounts, statutory records and documents etc. in respect whereof FIR No. 25/99 dated 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Police during investigation in the aforestated FIR, failed to appreciate that the Appellants could not have recovered the same as the Company s name was struck off from the Register of Companies. The impugned order is also assailed on the ground that the Tribunal failed to take notice of FIR No. 301/16 filed at Saraswati Vihar Police Station, Delhi in August, 1999 against the accused Director for illegal transfer of Car of the Appellant Company in the name of his Brother-in-law, in which charge sheet has been preferred and is pending trial before leaned Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West Rohini Court. It is further urged in appeal that on account of striking off the Company s name from the Register of Companies, the Appellant Company s acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y from Register of Companies and removal of its name for its failure to commence operations or not being in operation or not carrying on its business during the relevant period i.e. for two financial years immediately preceding the relevant financial year, is concerned, after going through the reply affidavit of Respondent and the available record including the Gazette Notification published for June 24- June 30, 2017, we are satisfied that the Company figuring at serial number 19461 of the Gazette Notification dated September 9- September 15, 2017 has been duly struck off from the Register of Companies w.e.f. 21st August, 2017. Any procedural lapse going to the root of the impugned action of the ROC resulting in removal of name of Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of by the Tribunal in the impugned order. In the given circumstances, it would be unjust to strike off the name of Company from the Register of Companies merely because it failed to apply for seeking of a Dormant Status. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the twin grounds projected at the hearing constitute a valid and just ground for restoring the Company on the Register of Companies. We accordingly set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and direct restoration of the name of the Company on the Register of Companies subject to the Appellants complying with all the statutory requirements for the defaulting period and paying off the fee including penalties leviable thereon warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
