TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 248(a)to(e) and effect of the order passed under Section 248 is provided in Section 250 of the Act. However, the remedy to an aggrieved person against the order of the Registrar, passed under Section 248 is provided under Section 252 and in Section 252(3) it is provided that the Tribunal, if satisfied that the company at the time of its name was struck off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise it is just that the name of the company be restored on the register of Companies it may pass the order that the name of the company be restored to the register of the Companies. It would be a hard case if the name of the company is struck off of the Companies and it falls under the just or otherwise category even if it is not bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Delhi and Haryana (Registrar) has been declined. 2. The brief facts of this care are that the Appellant Company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 26.04.2007 vide CIN U45400DL2007PTC162637 as a Pvt. Company Ltd. by shares with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana having its registered office at New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. 3. The main objects of the Appellant was to carry on the business of builders, promoters, developers, colonizers, contractors, architects, town planners, and to purchase, take on lease or in any other lawful manner any area, land building structures, space and to sell, build, repair, construct, promote, develop, maintain, manage, let, sublet, give on lease, dispose off or otherwise de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and it has also noticed that the Registrar has stated that it has no objection if the name of the Company is restored to the register of ROC. However, the Learned Tribunal noticed in the impugned order that the Appellant has paid the Income Tax only in the assessment year 2009 -10. The tripartite collaboration agreement dated 05.07.2008 signed amongst Mr. K.H. Khan, Mrs. Shaheda Begum and Mr. Karar Ahmad as first party and M/s Upkar Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. as second party and M/s Era Landmarks (India) Limited as the third party did not depict, in any manner, that the Appellant Company was either in operation or carrying on its business. The assignment agreement dated 25.01.2020 between M/s Adel Landmarks Ltd. and the Appellant Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n agreement was to develop the land into a project, named, the Arena comprising of a township consisting of a residential layout, residential buildings, commercial complexes alongwith clubhouses, swimming pools, etc and other similar developments and for the said purpose various parcels of lands situated at village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, admeasuring 36 Acres and 4 guntas was transferred to the Appellant Company vide an assignment agreement dated 25.01.2010 whereas the developer company had transferred all of its rights, duties and obligations under clause 2.7 of the collaboration agreement to the Appellant Company for operational convenience of implementing and marketing the project, namely, Arena. 8. It is also submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is carrying on business or is in operation or otherwise it is just. In this regard, Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of AVS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Ors. CA (AT) No. 47 of 2021, Urvashi Infrastructure Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana CA (AT) No. 28 of 2021 and Sidhant Garg and Anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies and Ors. (2012) 171 Comp. Cas. 326. 10. In reply, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has referred to the observations made and findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order and submitted that the appeal is without merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation mentioned in clause 2.7 of the collaboration agreement to the Appellant company for operational convenience of implementing and marketing the project, namely, Arena which was undertaken in pursuance to the joint development agreement dated 08.02.2007 and the memorandum of understanding dated 25.04.2008. It has also been brought on record that the details of the projects undertaken by the Corporate Debtor have been delineated wherein the Appellant s land being used under the project Arena. 14. In view of this fact, it would be a hard case if the name of the company is struck off of the Companies and it falls under the just or otherwise category even if it is not being called in operation as stated. However, it cannot be lost sight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
