TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perations. Hence, the order passed by the NCLT (Cuttack Bench, Cuttack) as well as RoC, Odisha is not sustainable in law. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the compliances imposed - application allowed. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 83 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2022 - [ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Ms. Shreesha Merla ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Panigrahi , Mr. R. Chandrachud , Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan , Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal Kant Jha , Advocate for RoC. JUDGMENT Justice Anant Bijay Singh ; The present Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, has been preferred by the Appellant bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deed dated 13.09.2013 measuring Ac. 0.16 Decimal for a consideration amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Appellant Company vide Registered Sale Deed dated 04.05.2013 purchased land measuring Ac.0.11 Decimal for a consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Appellant Company vide Registered Sale Deed dated 13.11.2013 purchased land measuring Ac0.21.5 Decimal for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Appellant Company vide Registered Sale Deed dated 24.01.2014 purchased land measuring Ac.0.11 Decimal for a consideration amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The Appellant Company has duly mutated the name of the Company against the purchased lands. iii) The Appellant Company has been operating since the date of its incorporation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying on its business within the meaning of Section 248 of the Act. The Tribunal has also not considered the sale deeds because it is vernacular language, the same has been filed before this Tribunal and also Audit Reports along with Balance Sheet and Financial Statements of the Appellant Company from 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 which shows that the Company is on going concern and doing business. 4. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the Appellant has not received any notices from the Respondent prior to the Gazette Notification dated 07.07.2017 and further Section 248 of the Act mandates notices are required to be issued before striking off the name of the Company fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that the Appellant Company have purchased the lands between 2011-2013 and Audit Reports along with Balance Sheet and Financial Statements of the Appellant Company from 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 shows that 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. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the NCLT (Cuttack Bench, Cuttack) as well as RoC, Odisha is not sustainable in law. 7. In view of the aforenoted, we set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (Cuttack Bench, Cuttack) in CP (Appeal) No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
