Marvellous Builders Private Limited Vs Registrar Of Companies Pune

National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court II 20 Jan 2023 Company Appeal/30/MB/2022 (2023) 01 NCLT CK 0040
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Company Appeal/30/MB/2022

Hon'ble Bench

P. N. Deshmukh, Member (J); Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (T)

Advocates

Vinit Nagar

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 164(2)(a), 167(1)(a), 248(1),248(5), 252(3)

Judgement Text

Translate:

P.N. Deshmukh (Retd.), Member Judicial

1. This is a Company Appeal/30/MB/2022 filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) filed by Mr.

Abhishek Kuldeep Pednekar, registered Member/Director of M/s. Marvellous Builders Private Limited (hereinafter called as ‘the Company’)

seeking a direction to the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai (hereinafter called as ‘the ROC’), to restore the Company in the Register of

Companies.

2. Brief averments of the Application are that the Company was incorporated on 09.10.1998, having its registered office at 702, Dwarkamai B Wing,

Mussa, Killedar street, Saatrasta, Mumbai-400011, in the State of Maharashtra. The Authorised Share Capital of the Company is Rs.10,00,000/-

(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) divided into 1,00,000 number of Equity Shares of Rs.10/-(Rupees Ten each only) and Paid up Capital of the Company is

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) divided into 1,00,000 number of Equity Shares of Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten each only). The main objectives of

the Company are given in the Memorandum of Association.

3. The Appellant Company has failed to file its Statutory Returns since 31.03.2017. The Respondent has, therefore, initiated action under Section

248(1) of the Act for striking off the name of the Company from the Register of Companies and consequently the name of the Petitioner Company

was struck off from the Register of Companies. Further in pursuance to sub section (5) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and as under Rule

9 of the Companies (removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 had issued a Public Notice as in Form no. STK 7

as on 12.09.2018.

4. The Deputy Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, has filed an Affidavit wherein the details of the Company such as date of incorporation and period

for non-filing of statutory returns for the financial years have been mentioned. While submitting the above facts the Deputy Registrar of Companies

has stated that this Hon’ble Tribunal may reject the petition as due process has been followed by the Registrar of Companies before striking off

the name of the company from the Register of Companies. Further, Disqualification of Directors under Section 164(2)(a) read with Section 167(1)(a)

of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be removed in this Petition. However, if the Petitioner proves that it is carrying on business, this Hon’ble

Tribunal may allow the revival of the Company.

5. In order to prove that the Company is carrying on business, the Appellant has submitted that the Company is presently owning development rights

over Plot No. 346 admeasuring to 510.10 Sq. Mts., Plot No. 348 admeasuring 766.67 Sq. Mts. And Plot No. 350 admeasuring 630.80 Sq. Mts.

situated at Vile Parle (East), Mumbai Suburban District on which company is developing a multi-storey Residential Property. The Appellant has

placed the conveyance deed of the properties. Further, the Company has entered in a Development Agreement dated 09.09.2011 with M/s. Solitaire

INN Hotel Co. a duly registered partnership firm for construction of structure in the form of service apartment. Wherein the Company shall retain

34% of the constructed area after completions of works. In view of this, it is clearly evident that the Appellant Company is active and carrying on

business. Moreover, it was not dormant when its name was struck off from the Register of Companies.

6. Heard. Perused pleadings and documents filed in support of the contentions of both parties.

ORDER

1. Having satisfied with the reasons mentioned above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to order restoration of the name of the Company

in the Register of Companies.

2. The Company shall file all the pending Financial Statements and Annual Returns with ROC as per the Act and Rules made thereunder besides filing an Affidavit

stating that the Company was neither involved in money laundering activities during the demonetization period nor any unlawful activities during the relevant period.

3. Further, the Appellant Company is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 25,000/- per year (FYs 2013-14 onwards) for which the Company has failed to file its Financial

Statements & Annual Return, amounting to Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Only) to the Bharatkosh and submit the receipt along with the other

documents to the ROC.

4. The RoC is directed to restore the Company in the Register of Companies. The Applicant is directed to place this Order with ROC within 30 days from the date of

receipt of this Order.

5. Accordingly, the Company Appeal/30/MB/2022 is hereby disposed of.

From The Blog
SC: Brother Can Sell Father’s House Even Without Share
Oct
31
2025

Story

SC: Brother Can Sell Father’s House Even Without Share
Read More
SC to Decide If Women Can Face POCSO Penetrative Assault
Oct
31
2025

Story

SC to Decide If Women Can Face POCSO Penetrative Assault
Read More