Vanessa Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Registrar Of Companies Mumbai

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.86 of 2023 In the matter of: Vanessa Estates Pvt Ltd & Anr Appellant Vs Registrar of Companies, Mumbai Respondent For Appellant: Mr Milan Negi, Mr. Prashant Jain, Mr. Varun Garg, Mr. Harsh Pandya, Mr. Nitya Prabhakar, Advocates. For Respondent: None ORDER

02.06.2023: Heard Mr Milan Negi, learned counsel assisted by Mr.

Prashant Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. The present

appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been

preferred against an order dated 09.03.2023 passed by National

Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter referred to as

'NCLT') in CP No.4459/2018.

By the said order the learned NCLT has rejected the

application filed under Section 252(1)(3) of the Companies Act,

2013 for restoration of the name of the company i.e. Vanessa

Estates Private Ltd which was struck off by the Registrar of

Companies (hereinafter referred to as 'ROC') by exercising its

power under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. 2

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the

fact that the appellant company was having an agreement for re-

development of slum area the learned NCLT ignoring it has not

entertained the petition for restoration of the name of the appellant

company and dismissed the petition.

Besides hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we have

perused the materials available on record. On going through the

record it is evident the company was incorporated on 10.02.2014.

However, the company did not even bothered to open bank

account which is reflected from the impugned order. In such

situation an inference can be drawn that the company was not

doing any business. We have also perused the STK-5 notice issued

by ROC dated 19.07.2018 for striking off the name of company.

There is no representation or cause given by the appellant

company and finally the learned ROC exercising its power under

Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 has struck off the name

of the company from the register of companies. The plea of the

learned counsel for the appellant that appellant company in the

year 2017 had entered into an agreement is not sufficient to draw

an inference that the appellant was doing any business. Moreover,

it is reflected from the material on record that after incorporation 3

in the year 2014 no financial statement or annual return was filed

before the ROC. In such view of the matter we do not find any

ground to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal

stands dismissed.

(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Alok Srivastava) Member (Technical) Bm/manu