Girdhari Arora vs Union Of India & Anr

Girdhari Lal Arora ...Appellant

Vs.

Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Anr. ...Respondents

Present For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Madan, Mr. Himanshu Harbola & Mr. Surya Panwar, Advocates. For Respondents: None.

ORDER

12.01.2023: Heard Mr. Ketan Madan, Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') against an Order

dated 08.03.2021, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi

Bench, Court II (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT'). By the same Order, an

Application filed under Section 252 of the Act for restoration of M/s. Makewell

Polymer Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'), which was

filed on behalf of two Ex-Directors, who are the Appellant before this Tribunal,

was rejected by the NCLT.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Company was

incorporated in the year 1984 and thereafter the Company was doing its

business, however due to an accidental fire in the premises of the Company, 2

the Company suffered a huge loss and due to this reason, they were not in a

position to conduct the functioning of the Company. The Company had filed a

'Claim' against the Insurance Company. The said dispute remained pending for

several years. Finally, in the year 2019, National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission ('NCDRC') passed an Order and compensation was allowed and

thereafter the Company now intent to restart its business. However, it has not

been disputed that preceding two years from the date of strucking off the

Company from the record of Registrar, the Company was not doing any

business.

4. From the perusal of the materials available on the record particularly

from the Impugned Order, it is evident that after 31.03.2007 no Financial

Statement or Annual Return were filed on behalf of the Company to the

Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as 'RoC'). Subsequently in the

year 2017 Notice was issued. It is also gathered that on behalf of the Appellant

no Application was filed to treat the Company as 'Dormant Company'.

Thereafter in the year 2017, proper Notice was issued and complying with the

provisions contained under Section 248 of the Act, in absence of any response,

the name of the Company was a struck off. Before the NCLT, it is evident from

the Impugned Order, that number of documents were placed but no statement

or/fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal as to whether two years prior

to the strucking off, the Company was doing business.

5. In such situation, the NCLT was having no option but to pass an Order

of rejection of Appeal filed by the Appellants by the Impugned Order. We do not

find any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 72 of 2021 3

The Appeal thus stands dismissed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)

[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) himanshu/kam

Company Appeal (AT) No. 72 of 2021