Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rakhee Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Registrar Of Companies

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal20 August 2018

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The imposition of costs on a company whose name was restored under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not justified where the restoration application was filed immediately after the striking-off, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the outstanding audited reports and financial statements had been enclosed with it. An order of the Tribunal allowing restoration under Section 252 does not, by itself, bar the Registrar of Companies from taking penal action under the Companies Act for earlier non-filing of audited reports and financial statements, where any such provision exists under the Companies Act, 1956 or 2013.

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. 245 of 2018IN THE MATTER OF:

Rakhee Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Registrar of Companies ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Sood and Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocates

ORDER

20.08.2018 The appellant filed the application under Section 252 of the

Companies Act, 2013 for restoring the name of the company in the Registrar of

Companies. Earlier the name of the company was struck off by the Registrar of

Companies by publishing a public notice dated 28th July, 2017, immediately

thereafter the application under Section 252 was filed. The National Company

Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') taking

into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the Annual

Returns and Financial Statements for the financial years ended 31st March, 1991

to 31st March, 2017 and as the remaining documents are ready, allowed the

application. However, while allowing the application the Tribunal imposed cost

of Rupees Ten lakhs on the appellant by the impugned order dated 12th April,

2018. The grievance of the appellant is limited to the imposition of the cost

which according to the appellant is not justified.

Notice was issued on Registrar of Companies, but no reply has been filed

raising any objection.

2

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and taking into

consideration the fact that the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant has

enclosed the Audited Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31st

March 1991 to 31st March 2017 allowed the petition and that the application

was filed immediately after striking off its name of the company, we are of the

view that it was not a fit case for imposition of the cost on the appellant.

However, it does not mean we have held that for delayed filing of the Audited

Report and Financial Statements for the year ended between 31st March, 1991

and 31st March, 2017, no penal order can be passed under the Companies Act,

2013.

For the reasons aforesaid, while we set aside the order dated 12th July,

2018 passed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench so far it relates to the imposition

of cost of Rupees Ten Lakhs on the appellant giving liberty to the Registrar of

Companies to pass order for not filing the Audited Reports and Financial

Statements between the years ended 31st March, 1991 and 31st March, 2017, if

there is any such provision under the Companies Act, 1956 / 2013.

The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial) ns/uk

Company Appeal (AT) No. 245 of 2018

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