Dr. Deepti Mukesh, J
1. The present appeal is filed by M/s Goodland India Infracon Private Limited (for brevity the 'Company') through its directors / Shareholder, under
Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for brevity the Act') against the order of striking off the name of the company, passed by the Respondent
under Section 248 (1) of the Act, issued vide bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated on 08.08.2018 by Registrar of Companies, the
respondent herein.
2. The Appellant states that, the company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and
Haryana under the Companies Act, 2013 on 24.03.2014 with CIN U70102 DL2014 PTC266811, having its registered office situated at E-261,
(Basement), Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar - IV, New Delhi- 110024, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
3. The Authorized Share Capital of the company is Rs.1,00,000/- divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid
up share capital of the Company is Rs. 1,00,000/- divided into 10,000/- equity shares of Rs. 10/- each, as per the Master Data Annexed.
4. The main objects of the company are: ""To carry on the business in Real Estates of all types by way of purchase and sale, leasing,
developing, designing and construction of residential houses and flats, commercial flats and buildings, factories, sheds and construction for
any other purpose, in India"" and other main objects.
5. The Respondent no. 1 herein had issued Public notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248/STK-5/2018/2912 dated 18.06.2018. Consequently,
Appellant's name was struck off vide notice bearing No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated on 08.08.2018 (Company's name appearing at Sl.
No. 7873) whereby name of 24280 companies have been struck off w.e.f. 08.08.2018 from the Registrar of Companies.
6. As per the ROC, Appellant had not filed its Financial Statements and Annual Returns from the Financial Year 2015-16 onwards, thereby giving rise
to the surmise that the business of the company was not in operation. Consequently, the name of the company was struck off in terms of provisions of
Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of
Companies) Rules, 2016.
7. The Appellant has brought forward the following documents about it being in operation and functional during the period of striking off:
i. The copies of Audited Financial Statements of the company for the period from F. Y. 2015-16 to 2018-
19. The Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2018 reflects Current Assets in form of Tangible Assets of Rs. 37,01,179.69/- and Cash and cash equivalents of
Rs. 55,904/-.
ii. The copy of Bank Statements of the Company in ICICI Bank for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 showing various transaction details of the
company and reflecting closing credit balance of Rs. 531.83/- as on 31.03.2015.
iii. Copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 26.03.2015 for the approval of the Scheme of de-merger from the Land
Rush Estate India Private Limited.
8. The Appellant further states that in the year 2018 when they were ready to file the Balance Sheet of the Company on MCA Portal, the Company
saw its status as struck off. The Company is ready to file all the documents with the Registrar of Companies but the same can be filed only after
restoration of name of the Company in the register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi 8s Haryana.
9. The ROC has filed its reply and stating that they have no objection if the name of company is restored in the Register of Companies, subject to
appellant filing all its pending statutory documents with the Registrar of Companies till date along with the requisite late filing fee as prescribed under
the Companies Act, 2013.
10. The Income Tax Department has filed its reply, in which it has been submitted that the Company has not filed its Income Tax Returns for any
Assessment Year. It further states that they have no objection, if the name of company is restored in the Register of Companies.
11. The grounds contemplated under section 252 of Companies Act, 2013, are that the company was carrying on business or was in operation at the
time of striking off its name or where it appears ""just"" to the Adjudicating Authority that the name of the company is to be restored to the Register of
Companies and the Section 252(1) further contemplates that one of the above three conditions are required to be satisfied before exercising
jurisdiction to restore the company to its original name on the register of the Registrar of Companies.
12. The Appellant has submitted sufficient evidence that it has been in operation during the period preceding strike off, therefore it could not be termed
as a defunct company as per section 252 of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 252(1) of the Companies Act, 2013,
which vests this Tribunal with a discretion where the Company, whose name has been struck off, and such Company is able to demonstrate that it is
just to do so, can restore the name of the Company, in the Register and in the interest of all stakeholders, including the Appellant itself, who seeks
restoration of the name of the Company in the register maintained by Registrar of Companies, the company deserve to be restored.
13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The Public Notice of Registrar of Companies, striking off the name of the company, is hereby declared illegal
and set aside. The restoration of the company's name to the Register of Registrar of Companies is ordered subject to its filing of all outstanding
documents with proper filing fees along with additional fees required under law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or
any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns, and also subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to
Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The name of the Appellant Company shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register of the Registrar of
Companies, as if the name of the company had not been struck off in accordance with Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
14. The petition stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
15. Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.
