KANODIA KNITS PVT LTD v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI & HARYANA [NCLAT]
Company Appeal (AT) No.216 of 2018
A.I.S. Cheema & Balvinder Singh. [Decided on 28/01/2019]
Companies Act, 2013 – Section 248 – Striking of name of the company documents could not prove that the company was working – Whether name to be restores – Held, No.
Brief facts:
The name of the appellant company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, as the company had not been carrying on business or nor in operations for two immediately preceding financial years and the company had not obtained the status of dormant company under Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act” in brief).
The appellant filed the appeal before NCLT claiming that it had not been served with Notice under Section 248(1) of the Act and the Registrar of Companies (ROC) had proceeded to issue notice under Section 248(5) of the Act and the name of the appellant company was then struck off. The appellant claimed that the company had been doing business and was in operation and audited financial statements for the year financial year 2012-13 to FY 2016-17 were filed.
The NCLT considered the case put up before it as well as the documents and came to the conclusion that the appellant company failed to prove that it was carrying on business or was in operation when its name was struck off and dismissed the appeal which was filed before it. Against the dismissal the present appeal has been filed and the same claim is put up by the appellant referring to the documents which were filed before NCLT.
Decision: Appeal dismissed. Reason:
The ROC filed reply before us and affidavit of ROC claims that the appellant company had not filed financial statements from the financial year ending 31.3.2004 till 31.3.2011. The balance sheet and annual return was filed for the year ending 31.3.2012 and thereafter again there was no filing and according to ROC, STK-1 notice was duly issued to company on 21.3. 2017 and the copy of the same has been filed. According to the ROC the appellant did not respond to the notice and further steps to strike off the company were taken. According to ROC, later on public notice as per Section 248(5) was issued.
We have no reasons to doubt the affidavit filed before us by the ROC attaching copy of the Notice dated 21.3.2017 as per STK 1 and the affidavit which claims that such notice was issued to the appellant company as per the official records of the ROC. Apart from this the appeal filed before NCLT itself admitted that notice under Section 248 was published in the official gazette, copy of notice STK 5 also gave opportunity to the appellant to move the ROC if it was aggrieved by the proposed removal of the company name. After such notice the appellant made no effort to move the ROC and put up its case that the appellant was in business or in operation when the name was struck off. Thus we are not accepting the contention that opportunity to the appellant was not given. Regarding the merits of the claim that the appellant was in business or in operation the documents filed before us include two income tax returns for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The return for 2016-17 claims that the gross total income of the year was Rs.504 and the income tax return for 2017-18 claims that the gross total income was Rs.1473/-. If the invoices are seen, the seller is shown as Kanodia Hosiery Mills and buyer is Kanodia Knit (P) Ltd. If the address of the seller is perused in these invoices it is 35, North Basti Harphool Singh, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi. This is the same address of the appellant, Kanodia Knits Pvt Ltd, also. How much weight such documents should be given is a foregone consequence. We are not impressed by such documents to claim that the company was in business or in operation. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the NCLT considered the documents placed before it.
Having heard the appellant, and seeing the documents when we have considered the above findings and observations of the NCLT, we do not find any reason to differ from NCLT. There is no substance in this appeal. The appeal is rejected. No order as to costs.
