9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trar of Companies, Jaipur' (ROC) vide notice dated 20th September, 2018 due to non-filing of Annual Returns and Financial Statements since its incorporation. The order was passed by ROC under Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 (the 'Act'). 2. On appeal by two shareholders of the Company, National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') ordered restoration of the Company to the Register of Companies, holding that the Company had not been struck off in accordance with Section 248 of the Act and allowed the appeal in terms of order dated 11th October, 2019 assailed in this appeal (impugned order). The fact that influenced the Tribunal in ordering restoration of name of Company has been noticed in Paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statutory returns and there is an FIR lodged against him for the same. It is contended that the Appellants being the suspended Directors are helpless and the restoration of Company had been sought with malafide intentions. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record on the file. The proposition of law as engrafted in Section 252(3) of the Act provides for satisfaction of either of the two conditions set out therein for exercise of jurisdiction vested in Tribunal to order restoration of Company back on the Register of Companies. Same are enumerated as under:- (i) That the Company was carrying on business or in operation at the time of its name being struck off or (ii) That it is otherwise just that the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, Jaipur, which had been filed by Respondent No. 2 herein against the Company and application for execution of decree was pending in which warrants in terms of Order 21 Rule 30 CPC had been issued for execution of decree. It is stated that in appeal, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has set aside the execution against private properties of the Appellants. This fact would at the most go to show that the mode of execution of decree was improper, if the facts asserted by Appellants in this appeal are accepted as gospel truth. Appellants have also admitted the factum of ROC having filed a complaint being Case No. 12/1997 before Special Court, Economic Offence, Jaipur against the Company and Respondent 2 herein under Section 220(3) of the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of law, we are of the considered opinion that in the wake of litigations involving the Company and its management a just ground existed justifying restoration of the struck off Company to the Register of Companies. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity in so far as exercise of power under Section 252(3) of the Act by the Tribunal acting as Appellate Authority against the order of ROC is concerned. The pendency of litigations, at whatever stage, warranted restoration of name of Company to the Register of Companies, so as to safeguard the interests of Company and the stakeholders.
8. There being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
