Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Aegis Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Registrar Of Companies, Nct Of Delhi & ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal19 March 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appellant company, to avoid striking off under the Companies Act, 2013, must demonstrate that it was carrying on business or operations in the two immediately preceding financial years; filing income tax return acknowledgements and profit and loss statements that show no revenue generation for those years does not discharge that burden, and an appellate forum is entitled to decline restoration of the company's name where no other documentary proof of operation can be produced.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICOMPANY APPEAL(AT) NO.397 OF 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Aegis Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Ors Appellant

Vs

Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana Respondents

For Appellant:- Mr Munawwar Naseem, and Ms Sonali Khanna, Advocates.

For Respondents: - Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate.

JUDGEMENT

19.03.2019 - The name of the appellant company has been struck off by the Respondent vide order dated 7.5.2017 in terms of provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of striking off the name of the appellant from the register of ROC. The appeal came to be dismissed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench III, in terms of impugned order dated 7.8.2018 on the ground that appellant company failed to demonstrate that it was carrying on business or operation in the two immediately preceding financial years. Aggrieved thereof the appellant has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality of the impugned order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It emerges from the impugned order that before the 1st Appellate forum the appellant relied upon Income Tax Return acknowledgement for AY 2012-13 to 2017-18 and Profit and Loss account statement for years ending 31.3.2015 to 31.3.2017. Admittedly the aforesaid account documents show that the appellant company had not generated any revenue for the preceding two years. When a specific question was put to learned counsel for the appellant whether she would be able to lay any other documentary proof to demonstrate that the appellant company was in operation in the two immediately preceding financial years, she frankly admitted that no such documentary evidence could be laid before this Appellant Tribunal. The reasons assigned by 1st Appellate Forum of declining to order restoration of name of appellant company in the ROC cannot be said to be suffering from illegality or infirmity. In the given circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical) Bm/nn

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free