TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has certain assets which necessitate and justify the restoration of its name in the Register of Companies. A step as stringent as what has been taken at least requires an opportunity to the appellant to take remedial measures. Merely to disallow restoration on grounds of its failure to file annual returns would be neither just nor equitable - As per several decisions of various courts it should only be an exceptional circumstance that court should refuse restoration where the company has been struck off for its failure to file annual return as that would be excessive or inappropriate penalty for that oversight. The Registrar of Companies, the Respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Appellant Company as if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Appellant submitted that the Registrar of Companies (Respondent herein) vide Public Notification dated 28.08.2018, struck off the Appellant Company's name due to default in statutory compliances w.r.t filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns, thus giving the status of a Dormant Company u/s 455(1) of Companies Act, 2013. iv. Appellant also stated that the Company has been active since its incorporation and had continuously maintained all the financial accounts including financial statements and Profit Loss account as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder. It is also submitted that the Company had complied with all statutory filings with Registrar of Companies within prescribed time uptil fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) amounting to ₹ 12,881,036.39/-, Total expenses including expenses on the head of employee benefit of ₹ 71,38,491.86/- and Cash and Cash Equivalents amounting to ₹ 1,65,815.44/- in account as per balance sheet of the financial year ending on 31.03.2018; b) Copy of Income Tax Returns filed for the assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19. c) Copy of Registry of Land dated 31.07.2013 in the name of Appellant Company worth ₹ 57,30,180.24/-. (Annexed as Annexure-9 in the Appeal). As per the above details, the Appellant Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations. 6. It is averred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Companies Act 2013 which includes that, if it is just and equitable to restore the name of the company in the Registrar of Companies, it may direct the ROC to restore (he name in its Register. 10. The Appellant has been able to satisfy this bench that it has certain assets which necessitate and justify the restoration of its name in the Register of Companies. A step as stringent as what has been taken at least requires an opportunity to the appellant to take remedial measures. Merely to disallow restoration on grounds of its failure to file annual returns would be neither just nor equitable. As per several decisions of various courts it should only be an exceptional circumstance that court should refuse restoration where the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
