9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench, Court-II) in Appeal 106/252(ND)/2021 whereby and whereunder appeal filed by the Appellant Company for restoration of the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), NCT of Delhi and Haryana was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Company- Balajee Developwell Private Limited was incorporated as a Private Limited Company in the name and style of "M/s Anjani Infra Private Limited" on 13.12.2007. The Appellant herein was a Director on the Board of the Company prior to striking off its name from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies since 2012 due to inadvertence. The maintenance of the books of accounts and the audited financial statements makes it apparent that the company is a functional entity and maintained its assets through the intervening years which is evident at Annexures A/5 Colly and A/6 Colly of the Appeal. However, vide notification dated 27.04.2017, the Registrar of Companies under provisions of Section 24891) wherein the name of the company was included at Sr. No. 3128. However, no personal notice was received by the Company and its directors as mandated under law. Subsequently, the name of the company was struck off by the Registrar of Company from its Register vide STK-7 dated 30.06.2017. iv) The Directors of the company came to know about th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal, submitted that the impugned order is contrary to both law and facts. Section 248 of the Act, the name of the company can be struck off on the ground that it has done no business or operation for two immediately preceding financial years from the date of notice. In the present matter, the date of notice is 30.06.2017 and the two preceding years are 2014-15 and 2015-16. The impugned order erroneously records that no substantial activity has been done in the financial year 2014-16 (within the preceding two years) however, brushed aside the vital fact that during the said time period, properties worth around Rs. 6 crores were purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed and accordingly, the name of the company has been struck off in violation of the law of the land and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In absence of personal notice, the company/its directors could not submit a representation and place on record the relevant facts which clearly prove that striking off the name from Registrar of Companies records is not warranted in the present case. It is accordingly gross violation of Act. 6. It is further submitted that the impugned order runs contrary to the law laid down by the court wherein the name of the company was restored in view of the fact that due to non-compliance of Section 248(1) of the Act, the Directors could not send their representations along with relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years ended on 31.03.2011. Moreover, no subsequent documents had been filed by the company with this office to obtain the status of a "Dormant Company" under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, this office had reasonable cause to believe that the company was not in operation and therefore, the name of the company was considered for striking off from the Register of Companies. Thereafter, the Registrar of Companies issued the notice in the form of STK-1 in March, 2017 intimating the company and the directors of the company at their registered office about the aforesaid defaults, providing them a fair opportunity to respond. Subsequently, this office also issued public notice for the same in the form of STK-5 in May, 2017. Thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (New Delhi Bench, Court-II) in Appeal 106/252(ND)/2021. The name of the Appellant Company be restored to the Register of Companies subject to the following compliances. i) Appellant Company shall pay costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana within eight (8) weeks from the passing of this Judgment. ii) After restoration of the Company's name in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, the Company shall file all their Annual Returns and Balances Sheets. The Company shall also pay requisite charges/fee as well as late fee/charges as applicable. iii) Inspite of present orders, Registrar of Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
