AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Deepti Mukesh, Member (Judicial)
The present appeal is filed by Mr. Anant Sexena (Shareholder & director) of M/s Durha Machines Private Limited (for brevity the
‘Company’), 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 (5) of the Act, 2013 vide Notice No. ROC/Delhi/560(5)SM/6003/11502 dated 31.05.2008,
which was published in the Gazette of India on 26.04.2008 (Vaisakha 6, 1930) by Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein.
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, 1956 on 03.09.1986 with CIN U25209 DL1986 PTC025329, having its registered office at 28-A, JIA Sarai 117,
Gate, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
 The Authorized Share Capital of the company is Rs. 10,00,000/- divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and
paid up share capital of the Company is Rs. NIL divided into NIL equity shares of Rs. NIL each, as per the Master Data Annexed.
 The main objects of the company are:
(a) Â To carry on the business of manufacturers, importers, exporters, agents, distributors, repairers, converters and designers of machines, machines part,
components, accessories and equipment of all types, including manufacture of circular looms.
(b) Â And other main objects.
 The Respondent herein had issued Public notice bearing No. ROC/Delhi/560(5)SM/6003/11502 dated 31.05.2008. Consequently, Appellant’s
name was struck off, (Company’s name appearing at Sl. No. 1377) whereby name of the companies have been struck off, published in Part-III,
Section-I of the Official Gazette of India dated 26.04.2008 (Vaisakha 6, 1930) from the Registrar of Companies.
As per the ROC, Appellant had not filed its Financial Statements and Annual Returns for the Financial Years 1995-96 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 560 of the Companies Act, 1956.
 The Appellant has brought forward the following documents about it being in operation and functional during the period of striking off:
i. Â The Copies of Audited Financial Statements of the company for the period from F. Y. 1995-96 onwards. The Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2008 reflects Current
Assets in form of Inventories of Rs. 20,49,344.05, Cash and Bank Balances of Rs. 6,92,675.28.
ii. Â The Copy of Lease Deed for a period of 95 years executed on 29.03.1990 between Governor of Himachal Pradesh, as lessor and M/s Durha Machines Pvt. Ltd., as
lessee for land admeasuring 2550 Sq. Mtr., Plots No. 6, 7 & 8, Industrial Area, Shoghi District Shimla for a total Value of Rs. 76,500/-.
iii. Â The Copy of No Dues Certificate in respect of Loan of Rs. 135.60 lakh against the company in DRO/Proj/DMPL/2011-16770 dated 04.03.2011 on 11.03.2011 issued
by IFCI, New Delhi.
iv. Â The Copy of the communications exchanged between the company and the Directorate of Industries, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shoghi Shimla dated
04.05.2012, 24.12.2015, 13.05.2020 and 23.01.2021.
v. Â The Copy of One Time Settlement (OTS) letter for amount of Rs. 121.00 lacs issued by State Bank of Patiala, Stressed Assets Management Branch dated
20.06.2015 with letter no. IFCI/NRLG/DMPL/2016- 160304097 dated 04.03.2016 on 30.03.2016 addressed to the company and directors.
vi.  The Copy of order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court filed by the company in CWPIL No. 11/2016.
 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.
The Income Tax Department has not filed any reply.
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(3) 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.
 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(3) 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.
 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(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
 The Appeal stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
 Let the copy of the order be served to the parties.