TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny response then as per STK-7 Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 2019 notice dated 11.7.2017 the name of the appellant company was struck off from the register of companies - Except the failure to file the financial statements and returns there is no complaint against the appellant company. Appellant has placed on record the report and financial statements from 2011-12 before the NCLT as well as before this Tribunal. On going through the reports and statements, it cannot be said that the appellant company is not carrying on any business since 2011-12. The appellant company is having assets and liabilities. In such circumstances, the order passed by the NCLT is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 203 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any. The Appellant company did not reply to the notice. Thereafter the notice was published on 27.4.2017 and on 11.7.2017 the STK 7 public notice was issued thereby the name of the company has been struck off from the register of companies. 4. Appellant company has challenged this order in Company Appeal No. 1296/252/NCLT/MAH/2019 before NCLT Mumbai. NCLT Mumbai found that the appellant company did not generate any income/revenue since incorporation. The company currently exists on paper, not carrying on any business or operation. Thus affirmed the order of the ROC, Pune and dismissed the appeal on 24.06.2019. Being aggrieved the appellant company has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are two d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing on behalf of ROC filed written submissions. In sum of substance is that the appellant company had failed to file financial statements and annual returns since 2011-12, therefore, after giving reasonable opportunity and following the procedure envisaged in Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 the name of the appellant company was struck off. NCLT after considering all the documents on record has rightly affirmed the order passed by ROC. Hence the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and 3 submitted that there is recovery from the appellant company. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e name of the appellant No. 1 company shall be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances: ii) Appellants shall pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Registrar of Companies, Pune within 30 days. iii) Appellants will also deposit the income tax liability and sales tax liability plus applicable interest with the concerned Department and produce the proof of the same before ROC, Pune. iv) Within 30 days of restoration of the company's name in the register maintained by the ROC, the company will file all their annual returns and balance sheets due for the period ending 2011-12 to date. The company will also pay requisite charges/fee as well as late fee/charges as applicable. v) Inspite of present ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
